AMERICAN  LUTHERANS!* 


By  F.  BENTE 


■ "  r 

VOLUME  i 


^J5«  OF  PR/«^ 
:.N  22  1941 
^OfiiCAL  SO^  ' 


CONCORDIA  SERIES 

OF 

MODERN  LITERATURE 
THEOLOGICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS 


Attwnran  £u%ratt 


0*  cf  rw}Ct 

194] 


l,»M     ryt' 


%UGiQ..  LS'l^ 


VOLUME  I 


-*- 


Early  History  of  American  Lutheranism 

and 

The  Tennessee  Synod 


By 

F,  BENTE 


St.  Louis,  Mo. 
concordia  publishing  house 

1919 


PREFACE. 


Essentially,  Christianity  is  the  special  divine  faith  in 
the  truth  revealed  by  the  Bible  that  we  are  saved,  not 
by  our  own  efforts,  works,  or  merits,  but  alone  by  the  pure 
and  unmerited  grace  of  God,  secured  by  Christ  Jesus  and 
freely  offered  in  the  Gospel.  And  the  Christian  Church 
is  the  sum  total  of  all  those  who  truly  believe,  and  there- 
fore confess  and  propagate  this  truth  of  the  Gospel. 

Accordingly,  the  history  of  Christianity  and  of  the 
Christian  Church  is  essentially  the  record  concerning  this 
truth,  viz.,  how,  when,  where,  by  whom,  with  what  success 
and  consistency,  etc.,  it  has  been  proclaimed,  received, 
rejected,  opposed,  defended,  corrupted,  and  restored  again 
to  its  original  purity. 

Lutheranism  is  not  Christianity  plus  several  ideas  or 
modifications  of  ideas  added  by  Luther,  but  simply  Chris- 
tianity, consistent  Christianity,  neither  more  nor  less.  And 
the  Lutheran  Church  is  not  a  new  growth,  but  merely  the 
restoration  of  the  original  Christian  Church  with  its  apos- 
tolic, pure  confession  of  the  only  saving  Christian  truth 
and  faith. 

The  history  of  Lutheranism  and  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  therefore,  is  essentially  the  story  concerning  the 
old  Christian  truth,  restored  by  Luther,  viz.,  how,  by  whom, 
where,  when,  etc.,  this  truth  was  promulgated,  embraced, 
rejected,  condemned,  defended,  corrupted,  and  restored 
again  to  pristine  purity. 

As  for  American  Lutheranism,  it  is  not  a  specific 
brand  of  Lutheranism,  but  simply  Lutheranism  in 
America;  for  doctrinally  Lutheranism,  like  Christianity, 
with  which  it  is  identical,  is  the  same  the  world  over. 


VI  PREFACE. 

Neither  is  the  American  Lutheran  Church  a  distinct 
species  or  variety  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  merely  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  America. 

The  modified  Lutheranism  advocated  during  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  as  "American  Lutheranism" 
was  a  misnomer,  for  in  reality  it  was  neither  American 
nor  Lutheran,  but  a  sectarian  corruption  of  both. 

Hence,  also,  the  history  of  American  Lutheranism  is 
but  the  record  of  how  the  Christian  truth,  restored  by 
Luther,  was  preached  and  accepted,  opposed  and  defended, 
corrupted  and  restored,  in  our  country,  at  various  times, 
by  various  men,  in  various  synods  and  congregations. 

In  the  history  of  American  Lutheranism  four  names 
are  of  special  significance:  Muhlenberg,  Schmucker, 
Walther,  Krauth. 

H.  M.  Muhlenberg  endeavored  to  transplant  to 
America  the  modified  Lutheranism  of  the  Halle  Pietists. 
S.  S.  Schmucker's  ambition  was  to  transmogrify  the 
Lutheran  Church  into  an  essentially  unionistic  Reformed 
body.  C.  P.  Walther  labored  most  earnestly  and  con- 
sistently to  purge  American  Lutheranism  of  its  foreign 
elements,  and  to  restore  the  American  Lutheran  Church 
to  its  original  purity,  in  doctrine  as  well  as  in  practise. 
In  a  similar  spirit  Charles  Porterfield  Krauth  devoted 
his  efforts  to  revive  confessional  Lutheranism  within  the 
English  portion  of  our  Church. 

The  first  volume  of  our  presentation  of  American 
Lutheranism  deals  with  the  early  history  of  Lutheranism 
in  America.  The  second,  which  appeared  first,  presents 
the  history  of  the  synods  which  in  1918  merged  into  the 
United  Lutheran  Church :  the  General  Synod,  the  General 
Council,  and  the  United  Synod  in  the  South.  The  third 
deals  with  the  history  of  the  Ohio,  Iowa,  Buffalo,  and  the 
Scandinavian  synods,  and,  Deo  volente,  will  go  to  press  as 
soon  as  Concordia  Publishing  House  will  be  ready  for  it. 
In  the  fourth  volume  we  purpose  to  present  the  history 


PREFACE.  VII 

and  doctrinal  position   of  the  Missouri,  Wisconsin,   and 
other  synods  connected  with  the   Synodical   Conference. 

As  appears  from  the  two  volumes  now  in  the  market, 
our  chief  object  is  to  record  the  principal  facts  regarding 
the  doctrinal  position  occupied  at  various  times,  either  by 
the  different  American  Lutheran  bodies  themselves  or  by 
some  of  their  representative  men,  such  comment  only  being 
added  as  we  deemed  indispensable.  We  have  everywhere 
indicated  our  sources,  primary  as  well  as  secondary,  in 
order  to  facilitate  what  we  desire,  viz.,  to  hold  us  to  strict 
accountability.  Brackets  found  in  passages  cited  contain 
additions,  comments,  corrections,  etc.,  of  our  own,  not  of 
the  respective  authors  quoted. 

As  collateral  reading,  especially  to  pages  1  to  147  of 
Vol.  I,  we  urgently  recommend  the  unique,  thorough,  and 
reliable  work  of  our  sainted  colleague  Dr.  A.  Graebner: 
"Geschichte  der  Lutherischen  Kirche  in  Amerika.  Erster 
Teil.    St.  Louis,  Mo.    Concordia  Publishing  House,  1892." 

While,  as  stated,  the  immediate  object  of  our  presenta- 
tion is  simply  to  state  the  facts  concerning  the  questions, 
theologians,  and  synods  involved,  it  self-evidently  was  an 
ulterior  end  of  ours  also,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  be  of  some 
service  in  furthering  and  maintaining  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit,  an  interest  always  and  everywhere  essential  to 
the  Lutheran  Church. 

"May  the  almighty  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
grant  the  grace  of  His  Holy  Spirit  that  we  all  may  be 
One  in  Him  and  constantly  abide  in  such  Christian  unity, 
which  is  well-pleasing  to  Him!  Amen."  (Form,  of  Cone, 
Epit.,  11,  §  23.) 

F.  Bente, 
Concordia  Seminary,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

July  28,  1919. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


American  Lutheranism.  page 

Introduction 1 — 10 

Early  History  of  American  Lutheranism  11 — 147 

Lutheran  Swedes  in  Delaware 11 — 16 

Salzburg  Lutherans  in  Georgia 16 — 20 

Lutherans  in  New  York  20 — 24 

Justus  Falckner   24 — 29 

Joshua  Kocherthal 29 — 32 

William  Christopher  Berkenmeyer  32 — 35 

Deterioration  in  New  York  35 — 39 

New  York  Ministerium    39 — 42 

John  Christopher  Hartwick  42 — 46 

Germantown,  Pennsylvania   46 — 50 

Slavery  of  Redemptioners 50 — 55 

Lutherans  in  Pennsylvania   55 — 59 

Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg   59 — 64 

Further  Activity  and  Death  of  Muhlenberg   ....  64 — 70 

Muhlenberg's  Confessionalism  70 — 73 

Muhlenberg's  Pietism 73 — 77 

Muhlenberg's  Hierarchical  Tendencies 77 — 83 

Muhlenberg's  Unionism 84 — 91 

Training  of  Ministers  and  Teachers  Neglected. . .  91 — 99 

Deterioration  of  Mother  Synod 99 — 103 

Unionism  in  the  Ascendency  103 — 110 

Typical  Representatives  of  Synod   110 — 113 

Synod's  Unlutheran  Attitude  Continued 113 — 116 

Lutherans  in  South  Carolina   116 — 119 

The  North  Carolina  Synod   119 — 122 

Critical  Conventions 122 — 128 

Gottlieb  Shober 129 — 131 

North  Carolina  Rupture 131 — 134 

Lutherans  in  Virginia    134 — 140 

Special  Conference  in  Virginia   140 — 144 

Synod  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 144 — 147 


X  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Tennessee  Synod    148 — 237 

Organization 148 — 158 

Objections  to  General  Synod   158 — 167 

Attitude  as  to  Church-fellowship   167 — 173 

Efforts  at  Unity  and  Peace 174—184 

Tennessee  Justifying  Her  Procedure 184 — 191 

Doctrinal  Basis 192—195 

Confession  Enforced 195—198 

Anti-Romanistic  Attitude 198 — 207 

Anti-Methodistic  Attitude    207—213 

Anti-Unionistic  Attitude 213 — 217 

Tennessee  and  Missouri 217 — 221 

Peculiarities  of  Tennessee  Synod   221 — 232 

The  Henkels 232—237 


American  Lutheranism. 


INTRODUCTION. 

1.  Christianity  the  Only  Real  and  True  Religion.  — 
Religion  is  man's  filial  relation  to,  and  union  with,  God. 
Natural  religion  is  the  concreated  relation  of  Adam  and  Eve 
in  their  state  of  innocence  toward  their  Creator.  Fallen  man, 
though  he  still  lives,  and  moves,  and  has  his  being  in  God,  is, 
in  consequence  of  his  sinful  nature,  atheos,  without  God,  and 
hence  without  true  and  real  religion.  His  attitude  toward  God 
is  not  that  of  a  child  to  his  father.  Heathen  religions  are 
products  of  the  futile  efforts  of  men  at  reconciling  God  and 
restoring  union  with  Him  by  their  own  penances  and  works. 
They  are  religions  invented  and  made  by  men.  As  such  they 
are  counterfeit  religions,  because  they  persuade  men  to  trust 
either  in  fictitious  merits  of  their  own  or  in  God's  alleged  in- 
difference toward  sin.  Christianity  is  the  divine  restoration  of 
religion,  i.  e.,  of  the  true  spiritual  and  filial  relation  of  fallen 
man  toward  God.  Essentially,  Christianity  is  the  divine  trust 
and  assurance  that  God,  according  to  His  own  merciful  promise 
in  the  Gospel,  is,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  His  merits,  my 
pardoning  and  loving  Father.  It  is  the  religion  of  justification, 
restoration,  and  salvation,  not  by  human  efforts  and  works, 
but  by  divine  grace  only.  Paganism  believes  in  man  and  his 
capacity  for  self-redemption ;  Christianity  believes  in  the  God- 
man  and  in  salvation  by  His  name  and  none  other.  From 
Mohammedanism,  Buddhism,  and  all  other  religions  of  the 
world  Christianity  differs  essentially,  just  as  Jehovah  differs 
from  idols,  as  divine  grace  differs  from  human  works.  Chris- 
tianity is  not  one  of  many  species  of  generic  religion,  but  the 
only  true  and  real  religion.  Nor  is  Christianity  related  to 
other  religions  as  the  highest  stage  of  an  evolutionary  process 
is  to  its  antecedent  lower  stages.  Christianity  is  divine  reve- 
lation from  above,  not  human  evolution  from  below.     Based, 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  1 


2  AMERICAN   LTJTHERANISM. 

as  it  is,  on  special  divine  interposition,  revelation,  and  opera- 
tion, Christianity  is  the  supernatural  religion.  And  for  fallen 
man  it  is  the  only  availing  and  saving  religion,  because  it  alone 
imparts  real  pardon,  and  engenders  real  and  divine  assurance 
of  such  pardon;  because  it  alone  really  pacifies  the  conscience 
and  fully  satisfies  the  heart;  and  because  it  alone  bestows  new 
spiritual  powers  of  sanctiflcation.  Christianity  is  absolute  and 
final,  it  is  the  non  plus  ultra,  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  of  re- 
ligion, because  its  God  is  the  only  true  God,  its  Mediator  is 
the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  its  ransom  is  the  blood  of  God, 
and  its  gift  is  perfect  union  with  God.  Compare  John  8,  24 ; 
Acts  4,  12;  John  14,  6;  3,  36;  Gal.  1,  8.  9.  Romanism, 
Rationalism,  Arminianism,  Synergism,  etc.,  are  heathen  rem- 
nants within,  and  corruptions  of,  Christianity,  elements  abso- 
lutely foreign  to,  and  per  se  subversive  of,  the  religion  of  divine 
grace  and  revelation. 

2.  The  Church  and  Its  Manifestations.  —  The  Christian 
Church  is  the  sum  total  of  all  Christians,  all  true  believers  in 
the  Gospel  of  salvation  by  Christ  and  His  merits  alone.  Faith 
always,  and  it  alone,  makes  one  a  Christian,  a  member  of  the 
Church.  Essentially,  then,  the  Church  is  invisible,  because 
faith  is  a  divine  gift  within  the  heart  of  man,  hence  beyond 
human  observation.  Dr.  Walther:  "The  Church  is  invisible  be- 
cause we  cannot  see  faith,  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
the  members  of  this  Church  have  in  their  hearts;  for  we  can 
never  with  certainty  distinguish  the  true  Christians,  who, 
properly,  alone  constitute  the  Church,  from  the  hypocrites." 
(Lutheraner,  1,  21.)  Luther:  "This  part,  'I  believe  a  holy 
Christian  Church,'  is  an  article  of  faith  just  as  well  as  the 
others.  Hence  Reason,  even  when  putting  on  ever  so  many 
spectacles,  cannot  know  her.  She  wants  to  be  known  not  by 
seeing,  but  by  believing;  faith,  however,  deals  with  things 
which  are  not  seen.  Heb.  11,  1.  A  Christian  may  even  be  hid- 
den from  himself,  so  that  he  does  not  see  his  own  holiness  and 
virtue,  but  observes  in  himself  only  fault  and  unholiness." 
(Luther's  Works.  St.  Louis,  XIV,  139.)  In  order  to  belong  to 
the  Church,  it  is  essential  to  believe;  but  it  is  essential  neither 
to  faith  nor  to  the  Church  consciously  to  know  yourself  that 
you  believe.    Nor  would  it  render  the  Church  essentially  visible, 


AMERICAN    LUTHERANISM.  3 

if,  by  special  revelation  or  otherwise,  we  infallibly  knew  of 
a  man  that  he  is  a  believer  indeed.  Even  the  Word  and  the 
Sacraments  are  infallible  marks  of  the  Church  only  because, 
according  to  God's  promise,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  shall 
not  return  without  fruit.  Wherever  and  only  where  the  Gospel 
is  preached  are  we  justified  in  assuming  the  existence  of  Chris- 
tians. Yet  the  Church  remains  essentially  invisible,  because 
neither  the  external  act  of  preaching  nor  the  external  act  of 
hearing,  but  inward,  invisible  believing  alone  makes  one  a  Chris- 
tian, a  member  of  the  Church.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  faith 
manifests  itself  in  the  confession  of  the  Christian  truths  and 
in  outward  works  of  love,  the  Church,  in  a  way,  becomes  visible 
and  subject  to  human  observation.  Yet  we  dare  not  infer  that 
the  Church  is  essentially  visible  because  its  effects  are  visible. 
The  human  soul,  though  its  effects  may  be  seen,  remains  essen- 
tially invisible.  God  is  invisible,  though  the  manifestations  of 
His  invisible  power  and  wisdom  can  be  observed  in  the  world. 
Thus  also  faith  and  the  Church  remain  essentially  invisible, 
even  where  they  manifest  their  reality  in  visible  effects  and 
works.  Apart  from  the  confession  and  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  and  a  corresponding  Christian  conversation,  the  chief 
visible  effects  and  works  of  the  Church  are  the  foundation  of 
local  congregations,  the  calling  of  ministers,  the  organization 
of  representative  bodies,  etc.  And  when  these  manifestations 
and  visible  works  of  the  Church  are  also  called  churches,  the 
effects  receive  the  name  of  the  cause,  or  the  whole,  the  mixed 
body,  is  given  the  name  which  properly  belongs  to  a  part,  the 
true  believers,  only.  Visible  congregations  are  called  churches 
as  quartz  is  called  gold,  and  a  field  is  called  wheat. 

3.  Visible  Churches,  True  and  False.  —  The  objects  for 
which  Christians,  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  unite, 
and  should  unite,  in  visible  churches  and  local  congregations, 
are  mutual  Christian  acknowledgment  and  edification,  common 
Christian  confession  and  labor,  and  especially  the  establish- 
ment of  the  communal  office  of  the  public  ministry  of  the  pure 
Gospel.  This  object  involves,  as  a  divine  norm  of  Christian 
union,  organization,  and  fellowship,  that  such  only  be  admitted 
as  themselves  believe  and  confess  the  divine  truths  of  the  Bible, 
and  who  are  not  advocates  of  doctrines  contrary  to  the  plain 


4  AMERICAN    LUTHERANISM. 

Word  of  God.  Christian  organizations  and  unions  must  not 
be  in  violation  of  the  Christian  unity  of  the  Spirit.  Organi- 
zations effected  in  harmony  with  the  divine  object  and  norm 
of  Christian  fellowship  are  true  visible  churches,  i.  e.,  visible 
unions  as  God  would  have  them.  They  are  churches  of  the 
pure  Word  and  Sacrament,  professing  the  Gospel  and  deviating 
from  none  of  its  doctrines.  Christians  have  no  right  to  em- 
brace, teach,  and  champion  error.  They  are  called  upon  and 
bound  to  believe,  teach,  and  confess  all,  and  only,  Christian 
truths.  Nor  may  they  lawfully  organize  on  a  doctrinally  false 
basis.  Organizations  persistently  deviating  from  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  and  establishing  a  doctrinally  false  basis,  are  sects, 
i.  e.,  false  or  impure  visible  Churches.  Yet,  though  error  never 
saves,  moreover,  when  consistently  developed,  has  the  tendency 
of  corrupting  the  whole  lump,  false  Churches  may  be  instru- 
mental in  saving  souls,  inasmuch  as  they  retain  essential  parts 
of  the  Gospel-truths,  and  inasmuch  as  God's  grace  may  neu- 
tralize the  accompanying  deadly  error,  or  stay  its  leavening 
power.  Indeed,  individuals,  by  the  grace  of  God,  though  error- 
ists  in  their  heads,  may  be  truthists  in  their  hearts ;  just  as  one 
who  is  orthodox  in  his  head  may,  by  his  own  fault,  be  heterodox 
in  his  heart.  A  Catholic  may,  by  rote,  call  upon  the  saints 
with  his  lips,  and  yet,  by  the  grace  of  God,  in  his  heart,  put  his 
trust  in  Christ.  And  a  Lutheran  may  confess  Christ  and  the 
doctrine  of  grace  with  his  lips,  and  yet  in  his  heart  rely  on  his 
own  good  character.  False  Churches  as  such,  however,  in- 
asmuch as  theirs  is  a  banner  of  rebellion  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  do  not  exist  by  God's  approval,  but  merely  by  His 
sufferance.  It  is  their  duty  to  reform  on  a  basis  of  doctrinal 
purity  and  absolute  conformity  with  the  Word  of  God. 

4.  The  Lutheran  Church  the  True  Visible  Church.  — 
The  Lutheran  Church  is  the  only  known  religious  body  which, 
in  the  Book  of  Concord  of  1580,  confesses  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel  without  admixture  of  any  doctrines  contrary  to  the 
Bible.  Hence  its  organization  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
divine  object  and  norm  of  Christian  union  and  fellowship.  Its 
basis  of  union  is  the  pure  Word  and  Sacrament.  Indeed,  the 
Lutheran  Church  is  not  the  universal  or  only  Christian  Church, 
for    there    are   many   believers    belonging   to    other    Christian 


AMERICAN    LUTHERANISM.  5 

bodies.  Nor  is  it  the  only  saving  Church,  because  there  are 
other  Churches  preaching  Christian  truths,  which,  by  the  grace 
of  God,  prove  sufficient  and  powerful  to  save  men.  The  Lu- 
theran Church  is  the  Church  of  the  pure  Word  and  the  tiiv- 
adulterated  Sacraments.  It  is  the  only  Church  proclaiming 
the  alone-saving  truth  of  the  Gospel  in  its  purity.  It  is  the 
Church  with  a  doctrinal  basis  which  has  the  unqualified  ap- 
proval of  the  Scriptures,  a  basis  which,  material^,  all  Churches 
must  accept  if  they  would  follow  the  lead  of  the  Bible.  And 
being  doctrinally  the  pure  Church,  the  Lutheran  Church  is  the 
true  visible  Church  of  God  on  earth.  While  all  sectarian 
Churches  corrupt  God's  Word  and  the  Sacraments,  it  is  the 
peculiar  glory  of  the  Lutheran  Church  that  it  proclaims  the 
Gospel  in  its  purity,  and  administers  the  Sacraments  without 
adulteration.  This  holds  good  with  regard  to  all  Lutheran 
organizations  that  are  Lutheran  in  truth  and  reality.  True 
and  faithful  Lutherans,  however,  are  such  only  as,  being  con- 
vinced by  actual  comparison  that  the  Concordia  of  1580  is  in 
perfect  agreement  with  the  Holy  Bible,  subscribe  to  these  sym- 
bols ex  animo  and  without  mental  reservation  or  doctrinal  limi- 
tation, and  earnestly  strive  to  conform  to  them  in  practise  as 
well  as  in  theory.  Subscription  only  to  the  Augustana  or  to 
Luther's  Small  Catechism  is  a  sufficient  test  of  Lutheranism, 
provided  that  the  limitation  does  not  imply,  and  is  not  inter- 
preted as,  a  rejection  of  the  other  Lutheran  symbols  or  any  of 
its  doctrines.  Lutheran  churches  or  synods,  however,  deviating 
from,  or  doctrinally  limiting  their  subscription  to,  this  basis 
of  1580,  or  merely  pro  forma  professing,  but  not  seriously  and 
really  living  its  principles  and  doctrines,  are  not  truly  Lu- 
theran in  the  adequate  sense  of  the  term,  though  not  by  any 
means  un-Lutheran  in  every  sense  of  that  term. 

5.  Bible  and  Book  of  Concord  on  Christian  Union  and 
Fellowship.  —  Nothing  is  more  frequently  taught  and  stressed 
by  the  Bible  than  the  truth  that  church-fellowship  presupposes, 
and  must  be  preceded  by,  unity  in  the  spirit,  in  doctrine. 
Amos  3,  3 :  "How  can  two  walk  together  except  they  be 
agreed?"  According  to  the  Bible  the  Word  of  God  alone  is  to 
be  taught,  heard,  and  confessed  in  the  Christian  Church.  Only 
true  teachers  are  to  preach  in  the   Church:     Deut.  13,  6  ff. ; 


6  AMERICAN    LUTHERANISM. 

Jer.  23,  28.  31.32;  Matt.  5,  19;  28,20;  2  Cor.  2,  17;  Gal.  1,  8; 
1  Tim.  4,  16;  1  Pet.  4,  11.  Christians  are  to  listen  to  true 
teachers  only:  Matt.  7,  15;  John  8,31;  10,27.5;  Acts  2,  42; 
Rom.  16,  17;  2  John  10;  1  Tim.  6,  3—5;  Eph.  4,  14;  Titus 
3,  10;  2  Cor.  6,  14 — 18.  In  the  Church  the  true  doctrine,  and 
only  the  true  doctrine,  is  to  be  confessed,  and  that  unanimously 
by  all  of  its  members:  1  Cor.  1,  10;  Eph.  4,  3—6.  13;  1  Tim. 
5,  22;  Matt.  10,  32.  33.  Christian  union  and  fellowship  with- 
out the  "same  mind,"  the  "same  judgment,"  and  the  "same 
speech"  with  respect  to  the  Christian  truths  is  in  direct  con- 
flict with  the  clear  Scriptures.  The  unity  of  the  Spirit  de- 
manded Eph.  4,  3  requires  that  Christians  be  one  in  doctrine, 
one,  not  50  or  75,  but  100  per  cent.  With  this  attitude  of  the 
Bible  toward  Christian  union  and  fellowship  the  Lutheran  sym- 
bols agree.  The  Eleventh  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
declares:  "For  this  is  sufficient  to  true  unity  of  the  Christian 
Church  that  the  Gospel  be  preached  unanimously  according  to 
t#e  pure  understanding,  and  that  the  Sacraments  be  adminis- 
tered in  agreement  with  the  divine  Word.  And  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  true  unity  of  the  Christian  Church  that  uniform  cere- 
monies, instituted  by  men,  be  observed  everywhere,  as  St.  Paul 
says,  Eph.  4,4.5:  'One  body,  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  Baptism.'" 
"Pure  understanding  of  the  Gospel"  is  here  contrasted  with 
"ceremonies  instituted  by  men."  Accordingly,  with  respect  to 
everything  that  God  plainly  teaches  in  the  Bible  unity  is  re- 
quired, while  liberty  prevails  only  in  such  things  as  are  insti- 
tuted by  men.  In  this  sense  the  Lutheran  Church  understands 
the  "Satis  est"  of  the  Augustana,  as  appears  from  the  Tenth 
Article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord:  "We  believe,  teach,  and 
confess  also  that  no  church  should  condemn  another  because 
one  has  less  or  more  external  ceremonies  not  commanded  by 
God  than  the  other,  if  otherwise  there  is  agreement  among 
them  in  doctrine  and  all  its  articles,  as  also  in  the  right  use 
of  the  Sacraments,  according  to  the  well-known  saying:  'Dis- 
agreement in  fasting  does  not  destroy  agreement  in  faith.' " 
(Mueller  553,  7.)  It  cannot,  then,  be  maintained  successfully 
that,  according  to  the  Lutheran  symbols,  some  doctrines, 
though  clearly  taught  in  the   Bible,   are   irrelevant  and   not 


AMEBICAN   LUTHEEANISM.  7 

necessary  to  church-fellowship.  The  Lutheran  Confessions 
neither  extend  the  requirements  for  Christian  union  to  human 
teachings  and  institutions,  nor  do  they  limit  them  to  merely 
a  part  of  the  divine  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  They  err  neither 
in  eoocessu  nor  in  defectu.  Accordingly,  Lutherans,  though  not 
unmindful  of  the  admonition  to  bear  patiently  with  the  weak, 
the  weak  also  in  doctrine  and  knowledge,  dare  not  countenance 
any  denial  on  principle  of  any  of  the  Christian  doctrines,  nor 
sanction  the  unionistic  attitude,  which  maintains  that  denial 
of  minor  Christian  truths  does  not  and  must  not,  in  any  way, 
affect  Christian  union  and  fellowship.  In  the  "Treatise  on  the 
Power  of  the  Pope"  the  Book  of  Concord  says:  "It  is  a  hard 
thing  to  want  to  separate  from  so  many  countries  and  people 
and  maintain  a  separate  doctrine.  But  here  stands  God's  com- 
mand that  every  one  shall  be  separate  from,  and  not  be  agreed 
with,  those  who  teach  falsely,"  etc.    ( §  42. ) 

6.  Misguided  Efforts  at  Christian  Union.  —  Perhaps 
never  before  has  Christendom  been  divided  in  as  many  sects 
as  at  present.  Denominationalism,  as  advocated  by  Philip 
Schaff  and  many  Unionists,  defends  this  condition.  It  views 
the  various  sects  as  lawful  specific  developments  of  generic 
Christianity,  or  as  different  varieties  of  the  same  spiritual  life 
of  the  Church,  as  regiments  of  the  same  army,  marching  sepa- 
rately, but  attacking  the  same  common  foe.  Judged  in  the 
light  of  the  Bible,  however,  the  numerous  sects,  organized  on 
various  aberrations  from  the  plain  Word  of  God,  are,  as  such, 
not  normal  developments,  but  corruptions,  abnormal  forma- 
tions, and  diseased  conditions  of  the  Christian  Church.  Others, 
realizing  the  senseless  waste  of  moneys  and  men,  and  feeling 
the  shame  of  the  scandalous  controversies,  the  bitter  conflicts, 
and  the  dishonorable  competition  of  the  disrupted  Christian 
sects,  develop  a  feverish  activity  in  engineering  and  promoting 
external  ecclesiastical  unions,  regardless  of  internal  doctrinal 
dissensions.  For  centuries  the  Pope  has  been  stretching  out 
his  arms  to  the  Greek  and  Protestant  Churches,  even  making 
concessions  to  the  Ruthenians  and  other  Uniates  as  to  the 
language  of  the  liturgy,  the  marriage  of  priests,  the  cup  to  be 
given  to  the  laity,  etc.  In  order  to  present  a  united  political 
front  to  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor,  Zwingli,  in  1529,  offered 


8  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM. 

Luther  the  hand  of  fellowship  in  spite  of  doctrinal  differences. 
In  political  interests,  Frederick  William  III  of  Prussia,  in 
1817,  forced  a  union  without  unity  on  the  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed of  his  kingdom.  In  America  this  Prussian  Union  was 
advocated  by  the  German  Evangelical  Synod  of  North  America. 
The  Church  of  England,  in  1862,  1874,  and  1914,  endeavored  to 
establish  a  union  with  the  Old  Catholics  and  the  Russian 
Church  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  Filioque.  (The  Lutherans, 
when,  in  1559  and  again  in  1673  to  1681,  negotiations  were 
opened  to  bring  about  an  understanding  with  the  Greek  Church, 
insisted  on  unity  in  the  doctrines  of  Justification  and  of  Free 
Will,  to  which  Jeremiah  II  took  exception. )  Pierpont  Morgan, 
a  number  of  years  ago,  appropriated  a  quarter  million  dollars 
in  order  to  bring  the  Churches  of  America  under  the  leadership 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  which  demands  as  the  only 
condition  of  union  the  recognition  of  their  "historical  episco- 
pate," a  fiction,  historical  as  well  as  doctrinal.  In  1919  three 
Protestant  Episcopal  bishops  crossed  the  seas  seeking  a  con- 
ference with  the  Pope  and  the  representatives  of  the  Greek 
Orthodox  churches  in  the  interest  of  a  League  of  Churches. 
The  Evangelical  Alliance,  organized  1846  at  London,  aimed  to 
unite  all  Protestants  against  Rome  on  a  basis  of  nine  general 
statements,  from  which  the  distinctive  doctrines  were  elimi- 
nated. The  Federal  Council,  embracing  30  Protestant  denomi- 
nations, was  organized  with  the  definite  understanding  that  no 
Church,  by  joining,  need  sacrifice  any  of  its  peculiar  doctrines. 
The  unions  effected  between  the  Congregationalists  and  Metho- 
dists in  Canada,  and  between  the  Calvinistic  Northern  Presby- 
terians and  the  Arminian  Cumberland  Presbyterians  in  our 
own  country,  were  also  unionistic.  Since  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century  the  Campbellites  and  kindred  sects  were  zealous  in 
uniting  the  Churches  by  urging  them  to  drop  their  distinctive 
names  and  confessions,  call  themselves  "Christians"  or  "Dis- 
ciples," and  accept  as  their  confession  the  Bible  only.  Indeed, 
the  number  of  physicians  seeking  to  heal  the  schisms  of  Chris- 
tendom is  legion.  But  their  cure  is  worse  than  the  disease. 
Unionistic  henotics  cannot  but  fail  utterly,  because  their  object 
is  not  unity  in  the  Spirit  of  truth,  but  union  in  the  spirit  of 
diversity  and  error. 


AMERICAN    LUTHERANISM.  9 

7.  Lutherans  Qualified  to  Head  True  Union  Move- 
ment. —  Most  of  the  union-efforts  are  failures  ab  initio.  They 
seek  outward  union  without  inward  unity.  They  proceed  on 
a  false  diagnosis  of  the  case.  They  observe  the  symptoms,  and 
overlook  or  intentionally  ignore  the  hidden  cause,  the  devia- 
tions from  the  Word  of  God,  which  disturb  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit.  And  doctrinal  discussions,  which  alone  can  bring  about 
a  real  cure,  are  intentionally  omitted  and  expressly  declared 
taboo,  as,  e.  g.,  by  the  Federal  Council.  The  Church,  suffering 
from  blood-poisoning,  is  pronounced  cured  when  the  sores  have 
been  covered.  They  put  a  plaster  over  the  gap  in  Zion's  wall, 
which  may  hide,  but  does  not  heal,  the  breach.  Universally, 
sectarian  henotics  have  proved  to  be  spiritual  quacks  with  false 
aims,  false  methods,  and  false  diagnosis.  Nowhere  among  the 
sects  a  single  serious  effort  to  cure  the  malady  from  within 
and  to  restore  to  the  Church  of  Christ  real  unity,  unity  in  the 
true  doctrine!  Indeed,  how  could  a  genuine  unity-union  move- 
ment originate  with  the  sects?  Can  the  blind  lead  the  blind? 
Can  the  beggar  enrich  the  poor  ?  Can  the  sects  give  to  Christen- 
dom what  they  themselves  are  in  need  of?  The  Lutheran 
Church  is  the  only  denomination  qualified  to  head  a  true  unity- 
union  movement,  because  she  alone  is  in  full  possession  of  those 
unadulterated  truths  without  which  there  can  be  neither  true 
Christian  unity  nor  God-pleasing  Christian  union.  Accord- 
ingly, the  Lutheran  Church  has  the  mission  to  lead  the  way  in 
the  efforts  at  healing  the  ruptures  of  Christendom.  But  in 
order  to  do  so,  the  Lutheran  Church  must  be  loyal  to  herself, 
loyal  to  her  principles,  and  true  to  her  truths.  The  mere 
Lutheran  name  is  unavailing.  The  American  Lutheran  synods, 
in  order  successfully  to  steer  a  unity-union  movement,  must 
purge  themselves  thoroughly  from  the  leaven  of  error,  of  in- 
differentism  and  unionism.  A  complete  and  universal  return 
to  the  Lutheran  symbols  is  the  urgent  need  of  the  hour.  Only 
when  united  in  undivided  loyalty  to  the  divine  truths  of  God's 
Word,  will  the  American  Lutheran  Church  be  able  to  measure 
up  to  its  peculiar  calling  of  restoring  to  Christendom  the  truths 
of  the  Gospel  in  their  pristine  purity,  and  in  and  with  these 
truths  the  true  unity  of  the  Spirit  and  a  fellowship  and  union, 
both  beneficial  to  man  and  well-pleasing  to  God. 


10  AMEBICAN   LTJTHERANISM. 

8.  Lutheran  Statistics.  —  God  has  blessed  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  abundantly,  more  than  in  any  other  country 
of  the  world.  From  a  few  scattered  groups  she  has  grown  into 
a  great  people.  In  1740  there  were  in  America  about  50  Lu- 
theran congregations.  In  1820  the  Lutheran  Church  numbered 
6  synods,  with  almost  900  congregations,  40,000  communicants, 
and  175  pastors.  In  1867  about  1,750  pastors,  3,100  congre- 
gations, and  332,000  communicants.  Twenty-five  years  later, 
60  synods,  with  about  5,000  pastors,  8,390  congregations,  and 
1,187,000  communicants.  In  the  jubilee  year,  1917,  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America  embraced  (besides  about  200  inde- 
pendent congregations)  65  synods,  24  of  which  belonged  to 
the  General  Synod  (350,000  communicants),  13  to  the  General 
Council  ( 500,000  communicants ) ,  8  to  the  United  Synod  South 
(53,000  communicants),  and  6  to  the  Synodical  Conference 
( 800,000  communicants ) .  The  entire  Lutheran  Church  in 
America  reported  in  1917  about  9,700  pastors;  15,200  con- 
gregations; 2,450,000  communicants;  28  theological  semi- 
naries, with  112  professors  and  1,170  students;  41  colleges, 
with  640  professors  and  950  students;  59  academies,  with 
404  teachers  and  6,700  pupils ;  8  ladies'  seminaries,  with  72  in- 
structors and  340  pupils;  64  orphanages,  with  4,200  inmates; 
12  home-finding  and  children's  friend  societies;  45  homes  for 
the  aged,  with  1,650  inmates;  7  homes  for  defectives,  with 
430  inmates;  9  deaconess  homes,  with  370  sisters;  50  hos- 
pitals; 19  hospices;  17  immigrant  homes  and  seamen's  mis- 
sions; and  10  miscellaneous  institutions;  a  large  number  of 
periodicals  of  many  kinds,  printed  in  numerous  Lutheran  pub- 
lishing houses,  in  English,  German,  Swedish,  Norwegian  and 
Danish,  Icelandic,  Finnish,  Slavonian,  Lettish,  Esthonian, 
Polish,  Portuguese,  Lithuanian,  etc.,  etc. 


Early  History  of  American  Lutheranism. 


LUTHERAN  SWEDES  IN  DELAWARE. 

9.  New  Sweden.  —  The  first  Lutheran  pastor  who  set  his 
foot  on  American  soil  in  August,  1619,  was  Rasmus  Jensen  of 
Denmark.  He  was  chaplain  of  a  Danish  expedition  numbering 
66  Lutherans  under  Captain  Jens  Munck,  who  took  possession 
of  the  land  about  Hudson  Bay  in  the  name  of  the  Danish 
crown.  In  his  diary  we  read  of  the  faithful  pastoral  work,  the 
sermons,  and  the  edifying  death,  on  February  20,  1620,  of  this 
Lutheran  pastor.  However,  the  first  Lutheran  minister  to  serve 
a  Lutheran  colony  in  America  was  Reorus  Torkillus.  He  was 
born  in  1609  at  Faessberg,  Sweden,  educated  at  Linkoeping, 
and  for  a  time  was  chaplain  at  Goeteborg.  Gustavus  Adolphus 
already  had  entertained  the  idea  of  founding  a  colony  in 
America,  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  mission-work 
among  the  Indians.  Peter  Minuit,  a  German,  who  had  come 
to  Manhattan  Island  in  1626  to  represent  the  interests  of  the 
Dutch  West  India  Company  (organized  in  1621),  led  also  the 
first  Swedish  expedition  to  Delaware  in  December,  1637.  Nine 
expeditions  followed,  until  the  flourishing  colony  was  captured 
by  the  Dutch  in  1655.  The  work  of  Torkillus,  who  died  Sep- 
tember 7,  1643,  was  continued  by  John  Campanius  (1601  to 
1683),  who  arrived  on  February  15,  1643.  Three  years  later, 
one  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Luther,  he  dedicated  the 
first  Lutheran  Church  in  America  at  Christina  ( Wilmington ) . 
His  translation  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism  into  the  language 
of  the  Delaware  Indians  antedates  Eliot's  Indian  Bible,  but 
was  not  published  till  1696.  Returning  to  Sweden  in  1648, 
Campanius  left  about  200  souls  in  the  charge  of  Lars  Lock 
(Lockenius),  who  served  them  until  his  end,  in  1688.  In  1654, 
Pastors  Vertunius  and  Hjorst  arrived  with  350  additional 
souls.  Both,  however,  returned  to  Sweden  when  Stuyvesant 
took  possession  of  the  colony  in  1655,  permitting  the  Swedes 
in  Delaware  to  retain  only  Lars  Lock  as  pastor.  Jacob  Fabri- 
cius,  who,  after  rendering  his  stay  in  New  Amsterdam   (New 


12  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

York)  impossible,  was  laboring  among  the  Dutch  along  the 
Delaware  from  1671  to  1675,  before  long  also  began  to  do 
mission-work  among  the  Swedes  and  Finns,  at  the  same  time 
intriguing  against  Lock,  whose  cup  of  sorrow  was  already  filled 
with  family  troubles  and  other  griefs.  In  1677  Fabricius  took 
charge  of  the  Swedes  at  Wicaco  (Philadelphia),  where  he, 
though  blind  since  1682,  continued  faithfully  to  wait  on  his 
office  until  his  death  in  1693  (1696).  He  preached  in  Dutch, 
which,  as  reported,  the  Swedes  "spoke  perfectly." 

10.  Succored  by  the  King-  of  Sweden.  —  In  1692  the 
now  orphaned  Lutherans  in  Delaware  addressed  themselves  to 
Karl  XI,  who  promised  to  help  them.  However,  four  years 
passed  before  Pastor  Rudman  arrived  with  two  assistants, 
Bjoerk  (Biorck)  and  Auren,  as  well  as  with  a  consignment  of 
Bibles  and  other  books.  New  life  entered  the  Swedish  colony. 
In  1699  the  new  Trinity  Church  was  erected  at  Christina,  and 
in  1700  Gloria  Dei  Church  in  Wicaco  (Philadelphia).  From 
the  very  beginning,  however,  a  spirit  of  legalism,  hierarchy, 
and  of  unionism  wormed  its  way  into  the  promising  harvest. 
The  congregations  were  not  taught  to  govern  themselves,  but 
were  ruled  by  provosts  sent  from  Sweden.  In  the  interest  of 
discipline,  Andreas  Sandel,  who  arrived  in  1702,  introduced 
a  system  of  monetary  penances.  In  his  History  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  Dr.  A.  Graebner  writes :  "Whoever  came  to 
church  tipsy,  was  to  pay  40  shillings  and  do  public  penance. 
Blasphemy  of  the  divine  Word  or  the  Sacraments  carried  with 
it  a  fine  of  5  pounds  sterling  and  church  penance;  to  sing  at 
unseemly  hours  was  punished  by  a  fine  of  6  shillings;  such  as 
refused  to  submit  to  the  discipline  were  to  be  excluded  from 
the  congregation  and  to  be  refused  interment  at  its  ceme- 
tery." (86.)  Eric  Unander,  who  returned  to  Sweden  in  1760, 
employed  the  same  methods  to  keep  order  in  the  congregational 
meetings.  A.  Rudman,  after  his  brief  pastorate  among  the 
Dutch  Lutherans  in  New  York  during  1702,  returned  to  Phila- 
delphia. From  1707  to  his  death,  in  1708,  he  served  an  Epis- 
copal church  without  severing  his  connection  with  the  Swedes. 
His  successors  followed  his  footsteps.  From  1737  to  1741 
J.  Dylander  preached  at  Gloria  Dei  Church  in  German,  Swedish, 
and  English  every  Sunday,  served  the  Germans  in  Germantown 


EARLY   HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LTJTHERANISM.  13 

and  Lancaster,  and,  in  the  absence  of  their  pastor,  ministered 
also  to  the  Episcopalians.  The  same  practise  was  observed  by 
the  provosts :  Eric  B joerk,  who  was  appointed  the  first  provost 
in  1712,  and  returned  to  Sweden  in  1714;  A.  Sandel,  who 
also  served  Episcopalian  congregations  and  returned  in  1719; 
A.  Hesselius,  who  left  in  1723,  and  in  Sweden,  1725,  published 
a  short  report  of  the  conditions  prevailing  in  America;  Peter 
Tranberg,  who  was  stationed  at  Raccoon  and  Pennsneck,  N.  J., 
from  1726  to  1740,  and  at  Christina  till  his  death  in  1748; 
J.  Sandin,  who  arrived  in  1746,  dying  two  years  later;  Israel 
Acrelius,  who  arrived  in  1749,  saw  the  language  question  be- 
come acute,  served  Episcopalian  congregations,  and  returned 
to  Sweden  in  1756,  where  he  published  (1759)  a  description  of 
the  conditions  in  New  Sweden;  Olaf  Parlin,  who  arrived  in 
1750  and  died  in  1757;  Dr.  C.  M.  Wrangel,  who  was  provost 
from  1759  to  1768,  assisted  in  rejuvenating  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  in  1760,  and  began  a  seminary  with  Peter  Muhlenberg, 
Daniel  Kuhn,  and  Christian  Streit  as  students;  Nils  Collin, 
whose  activity  extended  from  1770  to  1831,  during  which  time 
he  had  eight  Episcopalian  assistant  pastors  in  succession. 

11.  Church-fellowship  with  Episcopalians.  —  In  1710 
Pastor  Sandel  reported  as  follows  on  the  unionism  practised 
by  the  Swedes  and  Episcopalians:  "As  pastors  and  teachers 
we  have  at  all  times  maintained  friendly  relations  and  inti- 
mate converse  with  the  English  preachers,  one  always  availing 
himself  of  the  help  and  advice  of  the  other.  At  their  pastoral 
conferences  we  always  consulted  with  them.  We  have  repeatedly 
preached  English  in  their  churches  when  the  English  preachers 
lacked  the  time  because  of  a  journey  or  a  death.  If  anywhere 
they  laid  the  corner-stone  of  a  church,  we  were  invited,  and 
attended.  When  their  church  in  Philadelphia  was  enlarged, 
and  the  Presbyterians  had  invited  them  to  worship  in  their 
church,  they  declined  and  asked  permission  to  come  out  to 
Wicaco  and  conduct  their  services  in  our  church,  which 
I  granted.  This  occurred  three  Sundays  in  succession,  until 
their  church  was  finished;  and,  in  order  to  manifest  the  unity 
still  more,  Swedish  hymns  were  sung  during  the  English  ser- 
vices. Also  Bishop  Swedberg  [of  Sweden],  in  his  letters, 
always  encouraged  us   in  such  unity  and  intimacy  with  the 


14  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Anglicans ;  although  there  exists  some  difference  between  them 
and  us  touching  the  Lord's  Supper,  etc.,  yet  he  did  not  want 
that  small  difference  to  rend  asunder  the  bond  of  peace.  We 
enter  upon  no  discussion  of  this  point;  neither  do  we  touch 
upon  such  things  when  preaching  in  their  churches;  nor  do 
they  seek  to  win  our  people  to  their  view  in  this  matter;  on 
the  contrary,  we  live  in  intimate  and  brotherly  fashion  with 
one  another,  they  also  calling  us  brethren.  They  have  the 
government  in  their  hands,  we  are  under  them;  it  is  enough 
that  they  desire  to  have  such  friendly  intercourse  with  us; 
we  can  do  nothing  else  than  render  them  every  service  and 
fraternal  intimacy  as  long  as  they  are  so  amiable  and  confiding, 
and  have  not  sought  in  the  least  to  draw  our  people  into  their 
churches.  As  our  church  is  called  by  them  'the  sister  church 
of  the  Church  of  England,'  so  we  also  live  fraternally  together. 
God  grant  that  this  may  long  continue!"  (G.,  118.)  Thus 
from  the  very  beginning  the  Swedish  bishops  encouraged  and 
admonished  their  emissaries  to  fraternize  especially  with  the 
Episcopalians.  And  the  satisfaction  with  this  state  of  affairs 
on  the  part  of  the  Episcopalian  ministers  appears  from  the 
following  testimonial  which  they  gave  to  Hesselius  and  J.  A. 
Lidenius  in  1723:  "They  were  ever  welcome  in  our  pulpits,  as 
we  were  also  welcome  in  their  pulpits.  Such  was  our  mutual 
agreement  in  doctrine  and  divine  service,  and  so  regularly  did 
they  attend  our  conferences  that,  aside  from  the  different 
languages  in  which  we  and  they  were  called  to  officiate,  no 
difference  could  be  perceived  between  us."    (131.) 

12.  Absorbed  by  the  Episcopal  Church.  —  The  evil  in- 
fluence which  the  unionism  practised  by  the  Swedish  provosts 
and  ministers  exercised  upon  the  Lutheran  congregations  ap- 
pears from  the  resolution  of  the  congregation  at  Pennsneck,  in 
1742,  henceforth  to  conduct  English  services  exclusively,  and 
that,  according  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  In  the  same 
year  Pastor  Gabriel  Naesman  wrote  to  Sweden:  "As  to  my 
congregation,  the  people  at  first  were  scattered  among  other 
congregations,  and  among  the  sects  which  are  tolerated  here, 
and  it  is  with  difficulty  that  I  gather  them  again  to  some  ex- 
tent. The  great  lack  of  harmony  prevailing  among  the  members 
makes  my  congregation  seem  like  a  kingdom  not  at  one  with 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM.  15 

itself,  and  therefore  near  its  ruin."  (335.)  The  unionism  in- 
dulged in  also  accounts  for  the  trouble  which  the  Swedes  ex- 
perienced with  the  emissaries  of  Zinzendorf:  L.  T.  Nyberg, 
Abr.  Reinke,  and  P.  D.  Bryzelius  (who  severed  his  connection 
with  the  Moravians  in  1760,  became  a  member  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod,  and  in  1767  was  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don ) .  Unionism  paved  the  way,  and  naturally  led  to  the  final 
undoing  of  the  Lutheran  Swedes  in  Delaware.  It  was  but  in 
keeping  with  the  unionism  advised  from  Sweden,  practised  in 
Delaware,  and  indulged  in  to  the  limit  by  himself,  when 
Provost  Wrangel  gave  the  final  coup  de  grace  to  the  first  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America.  Dr.  Wrangel,  the  bosom-friend  of 
H.  M.  Muhlenberg,  openly  and  extensively  fraternized  not  only 
with  the  Episcopalians,  but  also  with  the  Reformed,  the  Pres- 
byterians ( in  Princeton ) ,  and  the  Methodists,  notably  the  re- 
vivalist Whitefield.  And,  evidently  foreseeing  the  early  and 
unavoidable  debacle  of  Swedish  Lutheranism  in  Delaware, 
von  Wrangel,  at  his  departure  for  Sweden,  suffered  the  Episco- 
palians to  use  him  as  a  tool  to  deliver  the  poor,  weakened,  and 
oppressed  congregations,  whose  leader  he  had  been,  into  the 
hands  of  the  Anglicans.  (392.)  On  his  way  home  Wrangel  car- 
ried with  him  an  important  letter  of  introduction  from  the 
Episcopalian  Richard  Peters  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  the  eccle- 
siastical superior  of  the  Anglican  ministers  and  congregations 
in  the  American  Colonies.  The  letter,  dated  August  30,  1768, 
reads,  in  part :  "Now  Dr.  Wrangel  intends  to  utilize  properly 
the  general  aversion  [in  Delaware]  to  the  Presbyterians  in 
order  to  unite  the  great  mass  of  Lutherans  and  Swedes  with 
the  Church  of  England,  which,  as  you  know,  is  but  small 
numerically  and  in  humble  circumstances  in  this  province; 
through  union  with  the  German  Lutherans,  however,  we  both 
would  become  respectable.  According  to  Dr.  Smith's  and  my 
opinion  this  could  be  effected  through  our  Academy.  In  it  we 
could  establish  a  theological  professorship;  then  German  and 
English  young  men  could  be  educated,  and  as  their  training 
would  embrace  both  languages,  they  could  preach  German  as 
well  as  English  at  places  where  both  nations  are  mixed.  That 
would  unite  us  all  and  make  us  one  people  in  life  and  love. 
It  is  a  happy  thought.  I  would  desire  your  Excellency  to  speak 
with  Dr.  Wrangel,  and  encourage  him  as  much  as  possible.    In 


16  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

this  matter  I  have  written  to  the  two  archbishops,  asking  them 
to  consider  it  carefully  together  with  your  Excellency.  I  am 
sure  that  now  the  opportunity  is  good  to  bring  this  desirable 
affair  to  a  happy  conclusion."  (394.)  In  a  document  dated 
June  25,  1789,  the  Swedish  government  served  official  notice  on 
the  congregations  in  America  that  in  future  they  could  no 
longer  expect  help  from  Sweden,  alleging  that,  whereas  "the 
purpose,  the  Swedish  tongue,"  had  come  to  an  end,  it  was  but 
just  that  in  future  also  the  disbursements  in  Sweden  should 
be  discontinued.  (401.)  The  result  was  that  one  congregation 
after  another  united  with  the  Episcopalians.  By  1846  the  Lu- 
theran name  had  disappeared  from  the  last  charter.  Thus  the 
entire  Swedish  mission  territory,  all  of  whose  congregations 
exist  to  the  present  day,  was  lost  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 
The  chief  causes  of  this  loss  were:  unionism,  hierarchical 
paternalism,  interference  from  Sweden,  the  failure  to  provide 
for  schools  and  for  the  training  of  suitable  pastors,  and  the 
lack  of  Swedish  and,  later,  of  English  Lutheran  literature. 
The  report  of  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  of  1762  remarks: 
"For  several  generations  the  Swedish  schools  unfortunately 
have  been  neglected  in  the  Swedish  congregations ;  Dr.  Wrangel, 
however,  has  organized  an  English  school  in  one  of  his  parishes 
where  Luther's  Catechism  is  read  in  an  English  translation." 
From  the  very  beginning  the  foundations  of  the  Lutheran  struc- 
ture along  the  Delaware  were  both  laid  insecurely  and  under- 
mined by  its  builders. 

SALZBURG  LUTHERANS  IN  GEORGIA. 

13.  Banished  by  Archbishop  Anton  Firmian.  —  Like 
the  Swedes  in  Delaware,  so  also  the  Salzburg  Lutherans  in 
Georgia,  as  a  Church,  have  disappeared  in  the  course  of  years. 
The  story  of  their  vicissitudes  and  especially  of  their  colony 
Ebenezer,  however,  has  retained  a  peculiar  charm.  On  Refor- 
mation Day  of  1731  the  cruel  Archbishop  Anton,  Knight  of 
Firmian,  issued  a  manifesto  which  ordered  the  Evangelicals 
of  Salzburg,  Austria,  either  to  return  to  the  bosom  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  or  to  emigrate,  leaving  their  property  and 
their  young  children  behind  them.  Some  eighteen  thousand 
Lutherans  chose  banishment  rather  than  deny  the  faith  that 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  17 

was  in  them.  On  their  journey  the  exiles  awakened  lively 
sympathy  by  singing  their  Exulantenlied  ( Hymn  of  the  Exiles ) 
which  Joseph  Schaitberger  had  composed  for  those  banished 
in  1685.  The  eleven  stanzas  of  this  hymn  read  in  the  original 
as  follows:  "1.  I  bin  ein  armer  Exulant,  A  so  tu  i  mi  schreiba; 
Ma  tuet  mi  aus  dem  Vaterland  Um  Gottes  Wort  vertreiba. 
2.  Das  wass  i  wohl,  Herr  Jesu  Christ,  Es  is  dir  a  so  ganga. 
Itzt  will  i  dein  Nachfolger  sein;  Herr,  mach's  nach  deim  Ver- 
langa!  3.  A  Pilgrim  bin  i  halt  numehr,  Muss  reise  fremde 
Strossa;  Das  bitt  i  di,  mein  Gott  und  Herr,  Du  wirst  mi  nit 
verlossa.  4.  Den  Glauba  hob  i  frei  bekennt,  Des  derf  i  mi  nit 
schaema,  Wenn  ma  mi  glei  ein  Ketzer  nennt  Und  tuet  mir's 
Leba  nehma.  5.  Ketta  und  Banda  wor  mir  en  Ehr  Um  Jesu 
willa  z'  dulda,  Und  dieses  macht  die  Glaubenslehr  Und  nit  mei 
boes  Verschulda.  6.  Muss  i  glei  in  das  Elend  fort,  Will  i  mi 
do  nit  wehra;  So  hoff  i  do,  Gott  wird  mir  dort  Och  gute 
Fruend  beschera.  7.  Herr,  wie  du  willt,  i  gib  mi  drein,  Bei 
dir  will  i  verbleiba;  I  will  mi  gern  dem  Wille  dein  Geduldig 
unterschreiba.  8.  Muss  i  glei  fort,  in  Gottes  Nam!  Und  wird 
mir  alles  g'nomma,  So  wass  i  wohl,  die  Himmelskron  Wer 
i  amal  bekomma.  9.  So  muss  i  heut  von  meinem  Haus,  Die 
Kinderl  muss  i  lossa.  Mei  Gott,  es  treibt  mir  Zaehrel  aus,  Zu 
wandern  fremde  Strossa.  10.  Mein  Gott,  fuehr  mi  in  ene  Stodt, 
Wo  i  dein  Wort  kann  hoba,  Darin  will  i  di  frueh  und  spot 
In  meinem  Herzel  loba.  11.  Soil  i  in  diesem  Jammertal  Noch 
laenger  in  Armut  leba,  So  hoff  i  do,  Gott  wird  mir  dort  Ein 
bessre  Wohnung  geba."  —  The  cruelly  persecuted  and  banished 
Salzburgers  were  hospitably  received  in  Prussia  and  Holland, 
where  many  found  a  permanent  home.  Others  resolved  to 
emigrate  to  Georgia,  where,  through  the  mediation  of  Dr.  Url- 
sperger  of  Augsburg  and  the  court  preacher  Ziegenhagen  of 
London,  the  British  government  promised  them  religious  liberty 
and  other  advantages. 

14.  Ebenezer  in  Georgia.  —  The  first  ninety-one  persons 
of  the  Salzburg  colony,  which  later  numbered  about  1,200  souls, 
landed  at  Savannah,  March  10,  1734.  They  were  accompanied 
by  Pastors  John  Martin  Bolzius  and  Israel  Christian  Gronau, 
who  had  received  their  education  at  Halle.  Governor  Ogle- 
thorpe  led   the   immigrants   twenty-three   miles   northwest   of 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  2 


18  EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

their  landing-place,  where  they  erected  a  monument  of  stones 
and  called  the  settlement  Ebenezer.  Seven  years  later  (1741) 
Jerusalem  Church  was  built,  for  which  also  Whitefield  had 
made  collections  in  Europe.  In  1743  a  second  church  was  dedi- 
cated in  the  country.  Dr.  Graebner  records  the  following 
statistics:  "In  1743  the  congregation  numbered  279  souls: 
81  men,  70  married  women,  6  widows,  52  boys,  59  girls,  and 
11  maid-servants."  (554.)  In  1744  the  Salzburgers  celebrated 
the  tenth  anniversary  of  their  deliverance  on  the  tenth  of 
March,  a  day  which  was  annually  observed  by  them  as  a  day 
of  thanksgiving.  Sorrow  followed  the  joyous  celebration,  for 
in  the  following  year,  January  11,  1745,  their  beloved  Pastor 
Gronau  was  called  to  his  eternal  reward.  Dwelling  on  Gro- 
nau's  edifying  death,  Bolzius  wrote  in  a  letter  dated  Jan- 
uary 14,  1845:  "His  heart  was  in  deep  communion  with  the 
dear  Savior.  With  profound  desire  he  received  the  Lord's 
Supper  a  few  days  before  his  dissolution.  He  distinctly  recog- 
nized all  who  surrounded  him  [when  he  was  dying],  and  ex- 
horted them  to  praise  God.  It  seemed,  and  such  was  also 
inferred  from  his  words,  as  though,  like  Stephen,  he  saw  some- 
thing extraordinarily  beautiful  and  glorious.  At  last,  after 
stretching  forth  his  hands  and  taking  leave  of  all,  he  directed 
his  folded  hands  toward  heaven,  praying  and  praising  God. 
Finally,  saying,  'Do  come,  Lord  Jesus,  Amen,  Amen,  Amen!' 
he  closed  his  eyes  and  mouth,  and  entered  peacefully  into  the 
joy  of  God."  (556.)  Gronau  was  succeeded  by  Pastor  H.  H. 
Lemke,  of  Schaumburg,  who  previously  had  been  active  in  the 
institutions  at  Halle.  His  diploma  of  vocation  was  signed  by 
Samuel  Urlsperger  in  the  stead  and  name  of  the  English 
Society  for  the  Promotion  of  the  Knowledge  of  Christ.  Thus 
Ebenezer  was  actually  the  foundation  of  a  mission  society 
whose  members  were  for  the  most  part  adherents  of  the  Re- 
formed Church.  In  1742  Pastor  John  Ulrich  Driessler  had 
been  called  to  the  congregation  of  Frederica,  south  of  Savan- 
nah. He  entered  upon  his  labors  in  1744,  and  died  three  years 
later.  In  the  following  years  several  ships  arrived  bringing 
emigrants  from  Swabia.  To  meet  the  growing  needs  Pastor 
Chr.  Rabenhorst  was  sent  to  the  colony  in  1753.  In  1765 
Pastor  Bolzius  died,  sixty-two  years  old,  repeating  the  words: 
"Father,  I  will  that  they  also  whom  Thou  hast  given  Me  be 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  19 

with  Me  where  I  am,  that  they  may  behold  My  glory  which 
Thou  hast  given  Me."  (John  17,  24.)  None  of  the  three  pas- 
tors, who  were  easily  able  to  minister  to  the  spiritual  needs  of 
the  colony,  displayed  a  missionary  spirit  in  any  marked  degree. 

15.  Dissension  and  Disintegration.  —  While  Bolzius, 
Lemke,  and  Rabenhorst  had  labored  together  in  harmony,  dis- 
sension and  strife  began  to  blast  the  blissful  peace  and  quiet 
contentment  of  Ebenezer,  when,  after  the  death  also  of  Lemke, 
Pastor  C.  F.  Triebner  arrived  in  1773.  The  congregation  was 
torn  by  factions,  the  minority  siding  with  Triebner  in  his  bitter 
opposition  to  Rabenhorst.  When  the  majority  refused  Trieb- 
ner permission  to  officiate  in  the  church,  the  minority  forced 
the  doors.  After  a  new  lock  had  been  secured  by  the  majority, 
the  minority  began  to  conduct  separate  services  in  the  home  of 
John  Wertsch,  and  entered  suit  before  the  Governor  of  Georgia. 
This  brought  about  the  loss  of  their  church  property,  the  Gov- 
ernor, in  accordance  with  the  express  wording  of  the  patent 
grant  of  April  2,  1771,  deeding  Jerusalem  Church  to  the  Epis- 
copalians. The  patent  contained  the  provision:  ".  .  .  for  the 
only  proper  use,  benefit,  and  behoof  of  two  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  residents  within  the  parish  aforesaid,  using  and  exer- 
cising divine  service  according  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Church  of  England  within  the  said  parish  and  their  suc- 
cessors forever."  (599.)  In  1774  Muhlenberg  arrived,  com- 
missioned by  the  "English  Society"  to  conduct  an  investigation 
and  to  restore  peace.  A  reconciliation  was  effected,  and  articles 
of  agreement  were  signed  by  the  pastors  and  the  members  of 
the  congregation.  Before  long,  however,  the  old  discord  broke 
out  again  and  continued  unabated  until  the  death  of  Pastor 
Rabenhorst  in  1777.  Triebner  now  secured  a  firm  footing  in 
the  congregation.  But  new  storms  were  brewing  for  the  poor 
people.  In  1775  the  War  of  Independence  had  broken  out,  in 
which  Triebner  not  only  espoused  the  cause  of  England  himself, 
but  urged  his  congregation  to  do  the  same,  thereby  bringing 
untold  misery  upon  Ebenezer.  Triebner,  taken  captive  and 
severely  dealt  with,  finally  found  his  way  back  to  Europe. 
After  the  war  Ebenezer  presented  a  sad  spectacle.  Soldiers 
had  used  the  church  as  a  hospital  and  stable;  Rabenhorst's 
home  had  been  given  to  the  flames;     fields  were  laid  waste; 


20  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

and  the  inhabitants  were  scattered  and  despoiled  of  their  prop- 
erty. The  congregation,  however,  recovered,  and  through  the 
endeavors  of  Urlsperger  received  a  new  pastor  in  the  person  of 
John  Ernest  Bergmann,  who  had  studied  at  Leipzig.  In  1785 
he  assumed  the  duties  at  Ebenezer,  formerly  discharged  by  two 
and  three  pastors.  But,  though  a  diligent  worker,  Bergmann 
was  not  a  faithful  Lutheran,  nor  did  he  build  up  a  truly  Lu- 
theran congregation.  There  came  a  time  when  but  very  little 
of  Lutheranism  was  to  be  found  in  the  old  colony  of  the  Salz- 
burgers.  (600.)  During  Bergmann's  long  pastorate,  which  was 
conducted  in  the  German  language  exclusively  until  1824,  the 
Americanized  young  people  gradually  began  to  drift  away  from 
the  mother  church.  However,  to  the  present  day  descendants 
of  the  Salzburgers  are  found  in  the  Lutheran  congregations  of 
Savannah  and  of  the  Georgia  Synod. 

LUTHERANS  IN  NEW  YORK. 

16.  Persecuted  in  New  Amsterdam.  —  In  the  first  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Lutheran  Church  was  by  law 
prohibited  and  oppressed  in  the  United  Netherlands.  When 
the  power  of  the  papists  had  come  to  an  end,  Reformed  tenden- 
cies gained  the  ascendency,  and  Calvinists  reaped  where  Lu- 
therans had  sowed  with  tears.  While  claiming  to  be  adherents 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  they  persecuted  the  Lutherans, 
forbidding  all  Lutheran  worship  in  public  meeting-houses  as 
well  as  in  private  dwellings.  Nevertheless  the  Lutheran  Church 
not  only  continued  to  exist,  but  even  made  some  headway  in 
Amsterdam,  Antwerp,  and  other  places.  The  greatest  handicap, 
however,  which  also  prevented  the  Dutch  Lutherans  from  de- 
veloping any  missionary  activity,  was  the  lack  of  a  native 
ministry  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  language  of  the  people. 
Conditions  similar  to  those  in  Holland  obtained  in  the  Ameri- 
can colonies.  Like  the  mother  country,  New  Amsterdam  had 
a  law  prohibiting  the  exercise  of  any  religion  save  that  of  the 
Reformed  faith.  Sanford  H.  Cobb,  in  his  work  The  Rise  of 
Religious  Liberty  in  America,  quotes  the  law  as  follows:  "No 
other  religion  shall  be  publicly  admitted  in  New  Netherland 
except  the  Reformed,  as  it  is  at  present  preached  and  practised 
by  public  authority  in  the  United  Netherlands;    and  for  this 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  21 

purpose  the  [Dutch  West  India]  Company  shall  provide  and 
maintain  good  and  suitable  preachers,  schoolmasters,  and  com- 
forters of  the  sick  (Ziekentrooster ) ."  (303,  321  f.)  However, 
the  report  of  the  Jesuit  Jogues,  who  sojourned  in  the  colony 
about  1642,  shows  that  this  law  was  not  strictly  enforced 
during  the  first  part  of  the  century.  Also  the  Lutherans  were 
permitted  to  conduct  reading-services  in  their  homes.  But 
when  the  Dutch  and  German  Lutherans  (the  former  having 
arrived  in  New  Amsterdam  probably  as  early  as  1624)  had 
organized  a  congregation  in  1648,  and  in  1653  requested  the 
authorities  to  grant  them  permission  to  call  a  Lutheran  pastor, 
they  received  a  curt  refusal  at  the  hands  of  the  governor, 
Peter  Stuyvesant.  The  two  Reformed  domines,  Megapolensis, 
who  had  arrived  in  1649,  and  Drisius,  who  came  in  1652  (the 
successors  to  Michaelius,  who  came  over  in  1623,  and  Bogardus, 
who  followed  him  in  1632),  proved  to  be  the  most  bigoted  and 
fanatical  in  the  opposition  to  the  request  of  the  Lutherans. 
Instead  of  their  petition  being  granted,  the  Lutherans  were 
now  forced  to  have  their  children  baptized  in  the  Reformed 
churches  by  Reformed  pastors,  and  to  promise  to  bring  them 
up  in  the  Confession  of  Dort;  and  private  services  in  dwell- 
ings were  made  punishable  with  severe  penalties.  Peter  Stuy- 
vesant, who  was  also  deacon  of  the  Reformed  Church,  declared 
at  the  close  of  a  session  of  the  church  council,  that,  if  any  one 
ever  dared  to  appeal  from  his  decision  to  the  authorities  in 
Holland,  he  would  reduce  his  stature  by  the  length  of  his  head 
and  send  him  back  to  the  old  country  in  pieces.  But  the 
Lutherans  were  not  intimidated.  When  Stuyvesant  denied 
their  request  for  a  Lutheran  pastor,  they  appealed  to  the 
authorities  overseas.  The  two  Reformed  domines  also  sent 
a  letter  to  Holland,  setting  forth  the  dire  consequences  which 
were  bound  to  follow  in  the  wake  of  such  religious  toleration. 

17.  Moderation  Advised.  —  The  authorities  in  Holland 
agreed  with  the  intolerant  domines  and  directed  Stuyvesant 
to  allow  none  but  the  Reformed  religion.  Yet,  while  denying 
the  request  of  the  Lutherans,  they,  at  the  same  time,  urged  the 
governor  to  employ  mildness  and  moderate  means  in  dealing 
with  them.  Cobb  gives  the  following  translation  of  these  in- 
structions:    "We  have  decided  absolutely  to  deny  the  request 


22  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

made  by  some  of  our  inhabitants,  adherents  of  the. Augsburg 
Confession,  for  a  preacher  and  free  exercise  of  their  religion, 
pursuant  to  the  custom  hitherto  observed  by  us  and  the  West 
India  Company,  on  account  of  the  consequences  arising  there- 
from; and  we  recommend  to  you  also  not  to  receive  any 
similar  petitions,  but  rather  to  turn  them  off  in  the  most  civil 
and  least  offensive  way,  and  to  employ  all  possible,  but  mod- 
erate means  to  induce  them  to  listen  and  finally  join  the  Re- 
formed Church."  (313.)  The  letter  was  dated  February  26, 
1654.  But  notwithstanding  this  rebuff,  the  Lutherans  persisted 
in  their  demand,  and  held  religious  services  in  their  houses 
without  a  minister,  declaring  that  "Heaven  was  above  law." 
This  excited  the  wrath  of  the  autocratic  governor,  who  was 
not  accustomed  to  brook  opposition,  nor  knew  how  to  employ 
mildness,  wisdom,  and  "moderate  means"  in  dealing  with  any- 
body, least  of  all  with  the  Lutherans.  Instead  of  persuasion 
he  employed  force;  and  instead  of  trying  "the  most  civil  and 
least  offensive  way,"  he  resorted  to  harsh  and  most  offensive 
measures.  On  February  1,  1656,  a  stringent  "Ordinance  against 
Conventicles"  was  posted,  which  ran:  "Some  unqualified  per- 
sons in  such  meetings  assume  the  ministerial  office,  the  ex- 
pounding and  explanation  of  the  holy  Word  of  God,  without 
being  called  or  appointed  thereto  by  ecclesiastical  or  civil 
authority,  which  is  in  direct  contravention  and  opposition  to 
the  general  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  order  of  our  Fatherland, 
besides  that  many  dangerous  heresies  and  schisms  are  to  be 
apprehended.  Therefore,  the  director-general  and  council  .  .  . 
absolutely  and  expressly  forbid  all  such  conventicles  and  meet- 
ings, whether  public  or  private,  differing  from  the  customary, 
and  not  only  lawful,  but  scripturally  founded  and  ordained 
meetings  of  the  Reformed  divine  service,  as  this  is  observed  .  .  . 
according  to  the  Synod  of  Dordrecht."  The  penalties  imposed 
by  the  act  were  £100  Flemish  for  the  preacher  and  £25  for 
every  attendant  at  such  services.  (317.)  A  number  of  Lu- 
therans were  cast  into  prison.  Realizing  that  such  harsh 
measures  would  prove  hurtful  to  their  business  interests,  the 
authorities  in  Holland,  in  an  order  dated  June  14,  1656,  re- 
buked Stuyvesant  for  his  high-handed  procedure,  saying:  "We 
should  have  gladly  seen  that  your  Honor  had  not  posted  up  the 
transmitted  edict  against  the  Lutherans,  and  had  not  punished 


EAKLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  23 

them  by  imprisonment,  .  .  .  inasmuch  as  it  has  always  been 
our  intention  to  treat  them  with  all  peaceableness  and  quiet- 
ness. Wherefore,  your  Honor  shall  not  cause  any  more  such 
or  similar  edicts  to  be  published  without  our  previous  knowl- 
edge, but  suffer  the  matter  to  pass  in  silence,  and  permit  them 
their  free  worship  in  their  houses."   (314.) 

18.  Johannes  Ernestus  Gutwasser.  —  Evidently,  to  the 
Lutherans  the  time  seemed  favorable  to  renew  their  urgent  re- 
quests for  a  pastor  of  their  own.  And  in  July,  1657,  Johannes 
Ernestus  Gutwasser  (not  Goetwater,  or  Gutwater,  or  Goet- 
wasser ) ,  a  German,  sent  by  the  Lutheran  Consistory  of  Amster- 
dam, arrived  on  Manhattan  Island.  Great  was  the  fury  of  the 
Reformed  domines  and  vehement  their  clamor  for  his  im- 
mediate return.  They  wrote  a  letter  to  the  classis  in  Amster- 
dam in  which,  according  to  Cobb,  "they  relate  that  'a  Lutheran 
preacher,  Goetwater,  arrived  to  the  great  joy  of  the  Lutherans 
and  the  especial  discontent  and  disappointment  of  the  congre- 
gation of  this  place,  yea,  of  the  whole  land,  even  the  English. 
We  went  to  the  Director-General,'  who  summoned  Goetwater, 
and  found  that  he  had  as  credentials  only  a  letter  from  a  Lu- 
theran consistory  in  Europe  to  the  Lutheran  Church  in  New 
Amsterdam.  The  governor  ordered  him  not  to  preach,  even  in 
a  private  house.  The  domines  lament,  'We  already  have  the 
snake  in  our  bosom,'  and  urge  Stuyvesant  to  open  the  consis- 
tory's letter,  which,  oddly  enough,  he  refused  to  do,  but  con- 
sented to  the  ministers'  demand  that  Goetwater  be  sent  back 
in  the  ship  that  brought  him.  Now  this  Lutheran  parson,' 
the  Dutch  ministers  conclude,  'is  a  man  of  a  godless  and  scan- 
dalous life;  a  rolling,  rollicking,  unseemly  carl,  who  is  more 
inclined  to  look  into  the  wine-can  than  to  pore  over  the  Bible, 
and  would  rather  drink  a  can  of  brandy  for  two  hours  than 
preach  one.'"  (315.)  But,  though  maligned  and  persecuted, 
Gutwasser  did  not  suffer  himself  to  be  intimidated,  and  even 
began  to  preach.  So  great  and  persistent,  however,  was  the 
fury  of  the  fanatics  that  he  was  finally  compelled  to  yield  and 
return  to  Holland,  in  1659.  The  second  Lutheran  pastor  to 
arrive  on  Manhattan  Island  while  the  Dutch  were  still  in  power 
was  Abelius  Zetskorn,  whom  Stuyvesant  directed  to  the  Dutch 
settlement  of  New  Amstel  (New  Castle)  on  the  Delaware.    The 


24  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM. 

tyranny  of  Stuyvesant,  however,  was  abruptly  ended  when  in 
1664  the  English  fleet  sailed  into  the  harbor  and  compelled 
the  surrender  of  New  Amsterdam.  In  the  Articles  of  Capitu- 
lation it  was  specifically  agreed  that  "the  Dutch  here  shall 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  their  consciences  in  divine  worship  and 
church  discipline."  And  according  to  the  proclamation  of  the 
Duke  of  York,  also  the  Lutherans  were  granted  religious  lib- 
erty, "as  long  as  His  Royal  Highness  shall  not  order  other- 
wise." 

JUSTUS  FALCKNER. 

19.  Fabricius,  Arensius,  Falckner  in  New  York.  — 
In  1669,  five  years  after  the  fall  of  New  Amsterdam,  Magister 
Jacobus  Fabricius  was  sent  over  by  the  Lutheran  Consistory 
of  Amsterdam  to  minister  to  the  Lutherans  in  New  York  and 
Albany.  Being  of  a  churlish  and  quarrelsome  nature,  he  soon 
fell  out  with  the  authorities  of  Albany  and  was  banished  from 
the  town.  The  New  York  congregation  was  torn  by  factions, 
many  demanding  the  resignation  of  Fabricius  on  the  ground  of 
"deportment  unbecoming  a  pastor."  The  matter  was  even  car- 
ried before  the  governor.  A  solution  of  the  problem  was 
brought  about  through  the  arrival  of  a  new  pastor  from  Hol- 
land in  the  person  of  Bernhardus  Arensius  (Arnzius).  Fabri- 
cius obtained  permission  to  install  Arensius  as  his  successor, 
and  went  to  Delaware,  where  he  labored  among  the  Dutch  and 
Swedish  Lutherans.  Arensius  continued  to  serve  the  Lutherans 
in  New  York  and  Albany  from  1671  to  1691.  The  mildness  and 
firmness  which  he  displayed  in  trying  circumstances  repaired 
the  harm  done  by  Fabricius.  Dr.  Graebner  says:  "In  Pastor 
Arnzius  the  Dutch  Lutheran  congregations  on  the  Hudson  had 
an  excellent  preacher  and  pastor,  a  man  of  whom  they  had  no 
cause  whatever  to  be  ashamed.  Above  all  he  was  a  sound  Lu- 
theran, whose  opposition  to  any  and  all  church-fellowship  with 
the  Reformed  was  so  decided  that  he  abstained  even  from 
cultivating  social  intercourse  with  the  pastor  of  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church,  although  it  would  seem  that  the  existing 
conditions  called  for  it."  (70.)  After  the  death  of  Pastor 
Arensius,  in  1691,  a  long  vacancy  ensued,  lasting  till  1702, 
when  Pastor  Rudman,  a  Swede  from  Philadelphia,  acceding 
to  their  repeated  requests,  took  charge  of  the  congregation  in 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  25 

New  York.  But  finding  himself  unequal  to  the  task  of  regu- 
lating their  deranged  affairs,  he  resigned  in  1703.  Rudman 
was  succeeded  by  Justus  Falckner,  who  was  ordained  Novem- 
ber 25,  1703,  in  the  Swedish  Gloria  Dei  Church  of  Wicaco,  by 
Rudman,  Bjoerk,  and  Sandel,  the  first  Lutheran  ordination  in 
America.  The  new  pastor,  who  arrived  in  New  York  on  Decem- 
ber 2,  1703,  proved  to  be  a  true  Lutheran,  a  faithful  shepherd 
of  the  flock  committed  to  his  care,  among  which  he  labored 
with  much  blessing  for  a  period  of  twenty  years.  Graebner 
says :  "It  is  a  most  pleasing,  captivating  figure  that  we  behold 
in  Pastor  Justus  Falckner  during  the  twenty  years  of  his  ac- 
tivity, a  man  of  excellent  parts,  of  splendid  knowledge,  of 
a  delicate  disposition,  of  a  truly  pious  frame  of  mind,  of  a  de- 
cidedly Lutheran  standpoint,  of  active  and  enduring  diligence 
in  his  office,  in  short,  an  all-round  pastor.  He  had  assumed 
the  duties  of  his  office  with  the  consciousness  that  he  was 
able  to  accomplish  nothing  without  the  gracious  assistance  of 
God;  that  God  would  grant  him  sufficiency  was  the  fer- 
vent prayer  of  his  heart."  (94.)  Justus  Falckner,  born  No- 
vember 22,  1672,  was  the  fourth  son  of  Daniel  Falckner,  Lu- 
theran pastor  at  Langenreinsdorf,  Crimmitschau,  and  Zwickau, 
Saxony.  He  entered  the  University  of  Halle,  January  20,  1693, 
and  studied  theology  under  A.  H.  Francke.  He  completed  his 
course,  but  shrank  from  assuming  the  tremendous  responsibility 
of  the  ministry.  On  April  23,  1700,  he  acquired  the  power  of 
attorney  for  the  sale  of  William  Penn's  lands  in  Pennsylvania, 
and  left  with  his  older  brother,  Daniel,  for  America.  In  1701 
ten  thousand  acres  of  Penn's  lands  were  sold  to  Provost  Rud- 
man and  other  Swedes.  Probably  this  transaction  brought 
Rudman  into  closer  contact  with  J.  Falckner,  who  also  had 
attended  the  Swedish  church  in  Philadelphia.  The  result  was 
that  Falckner  was  ordained  and  placed  in  charge  of  the  con- 
gregations in  New  York  and  Albany.  While  a  student  at 
Halle,  Falckner  wrote  the  hymn:  "Auf!  ihr  Christen,  Christi 
Glieder  —  Rise,  Ye  Children  of  Salvation."  (Diet,  of  Hym- 
nology,  363.) 

20.  Falckner's  Spirituality.  —  Falckner  was  of  a  spir- 
itual and  truly  pastoral  frame  of  mind.  He  was  a  faithful 
and  humble   shepherd,  who  loved  the  flock  entrusted  to  him 


26  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

with  all  his  heart.  "God,  the  Father  of  all  goodness  and  Lord 
of  great  majesty,  who  hast  thrust  me  into  this  harvest,  be  with 
me,  Thy  humble  and  very  weak  laborer,  with  Thy  special  grace, 
without  which  I  must  needs  perish  under  the  burden  of  temp- 
tations which  frequently  descend  upon  me  with  violence.  In 
Thee,  Lord,  have  I  put  my  trust,  let  me  not  be  confounded! 
Render  me  sufficient  for  my  calling.  I  have  not  run,  but  Thou 
hast  sent,  hast  thrust  me  into  this  office.  Meanwhile  forgive 
whatever,  without  my  knowledge,  my  evil  nature  may  add; 
pardon  me,  who  am  humbly  crying  unto  Thee,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Amen."  Such  was  the  prayer  with  which, 
in  classic  Latin,  Falckner  prefaced  his  entries  in  the  church 
register.  Following  are  some  of  the  prayers  which  he  appended 
to  his  entries  of  baptisms:  "0  Lord,  Lord,  may  this  child, 
together  with  the  three  aforementioned  Hackensack  children, 
be  and  remain  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Life,  through  Jesus 
Christ.  Amen."  "God  grant  that  also  this  child  be  and  remain 
embraced  in  Thy  eternal  grace  and  favor  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Amen."  "0  Lord,  may  this  child  be  commended  unto  Thee  for 
its  temporal  and  eternal  welfare,  through  Jesus  Christ.  Amen." 
"May  this  child  also,  0  Lord  God,  be  and  remain  an  heiress  of 
Thy  Kingdom  of  Grace  and  of  the  glory  which  Christ  has  ob- 
tained for  us.  Amen."  "God  grant  that  this  child  may  over- 
come Satan,  the  world,  and  its  own  corrupted  nature,  and  with 
Christ  reign  and  triumph  eternally  for  Christ's  sake.  Amen." 
"Lord  Jesus,  grant  that  this  child  may  taste  and  enjoy  Thy 
sweet  love  and  grace  in  time  and  eternity."  In  1704  Falckner 
baptized  in  his  congregation  at  New  York  "Maria,  the  daughter 
of  Are  of  Guinea,  a  negro,  and  his  wife  Jora,  both  Christians 
of  our  congregation."  To  the  record  of  this  baptism  he  added 
the  prayer :  "Lord,  merciful  God,  who  regardest  not  the  person 
of  men,  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  Thee  and  doeth 
right  is  accepted  before  Thee:  let  this  child  be  clothed  with 
the  white  garment  of  innocence  and  righteousness,  and  so  re- 
main, through  Christ,  the  Redeemer  and  Savior  of  all  men. 
Amen."  In  later  years,  Falckner,  after  recording  the  baptisms 
of  an  entire  year,  would  add  a  prayer  like  the  following :  "Lord, 
Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant 
in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving 
iniquities  and  transgressions  and  sin:    do  not  let  one  of  the 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM.  27 

names  above  written  be  blotted  out  of  Thy  Book,  but  let  them 
be  written  and  remain  therein,  through  Jesus  Christ,  Thy  dear 
Son.  Amen."  One  of  the  intercessions  recorded  with  the  en- 
tries of  confirmations  reads  as  follows:  "Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
should  Satan  seek  to  sift  as  wheat  one  or  the  other  of  these 
members  of  Thy  congregation,  then  do  Thou  pray  for  them 
to  Thy  heavenly  Father  that  their  faith  may  not  cease,  for  the 
sake  of  Thy  holy  merit.  Amen."  Marriages  are  recorded  with 
prayers  like  the  following:  "Grant,  Lord  God,  that  also  this 
union  may  redound  to  the  honor  of  Thy  holy  name,  to  the  pro- 
motion of  Thy  kingdom,  and  to  the  temporal  and  eternal  bless- 
ing of  those  united,  through  Jesus  Christ.  Amen."  Graebner 
remarks:  "What  a  gifted  and  sincerely  pious  pastoral  frame 
of  mind  appears  in  the  entries  of  the  noble  man,  whom  God, 
in  wonderful  ways,  led  from  far-away  Saxony  to  New  York 
and  here  made  a  shepherd  and  teacher  of  the  Dutch  Lu- 
therans!"  (94  ff.) 

21.  Distinctive  Doctrines  Stressed.  —  Tender  love  for  his 
flock  did  not  silence  Falckner's  confessional  Lutheranism,  nor 
did  it  induce  him  to  keep  doctrinal  differences  in  the  back- 
ground. He  was  no  unionist.  On  the  contrary,  in  order  to 
protect  the  souls  committed  to  his  care  from  the  Reformed 
errors  with  which  they  came  into  contact  everywhere,  and  to 
enable  them  to  confess  and  defend  the  Lutheran  truth  efficiently, 
he  emphasized  and  preached  also  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.  Naturally,  his  congregation  was  imbued 
with  the  same  spirit  of  sound  and  determined  Lutheranism. 
"The  straitened  circumstances  of  our  Dutch  Lutherans,"  says 
Graebner,  "might  have  suggested  to  their  flesh  to  seek  a  better 
understanding  with  the  Dutch  and  English  Reformed  of  the 
city,  and  to  sacrifice  some  of  their  Lutheranism,  in  order  to 
win  the  friendship  as  well  as  the  support  of  these  people.  In- 
stead, we  hear  that  these  Lutherans  manfully  confessed  their 
Lutheran  faith  whenever  they  came  in  contact  with  their 
Reformed  compatriots.  And  Pastor  Falckner  was  repeatedly 
urged  by  members  of  his  congregation  to  compile  a  booklet 
for  his  parishioners  in  which  the  chief  doctrines,  especially 
the  distinctive  doctrines  concerning  which  they  were  often 
called  upon  to  make  confession,  would  be  briefly  set  forth,  to- 


28  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM. 

gether  with  the  necessary  proof-passages.  Falckner  acceded  to 
these  requests.  In  1708  he  published  a  book  entitled  'Thorough 
Instruction  (Grondlycke  Onderricht)  concerning  Certain  Chief 
Articles  of  the  True,  Pure,  Saving,  Christian  Doctrine,  Based 
upon  the  Foundation  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  Jesus 
Christ  Himself  Being  the  Chief  Corner-stone.'  "  It  was  the 
first  book  to  appear  from  the  pen  of  a  Lutheran  pastor  in 
America,  and  till  the  awakening  of  Confessional  Lutheranism 
the  only  uncompromising  presentation  of  Lutheran  doctrine. 
V.  E.  Loescher  praised  it  as  being  an  "Anti-Calvinistic  Com- 
pend  of  Doctrine,  Compendium  Doctrinae  Anti-Calvinianum." 
The  chapter  on  the  "Freedom  of  the  Will,"  which  is  embodied 
in  Graebner's  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  be- 
speaks theological  acumen  and  clarity  on  the  part  of  the  author. 
In  simple  catechetical  form,  together  with  most  appropriate 
Bible-passages,  Falckner  presents  the  following  truths:  Having 
lost  the  divine  image,  man,  by  his  own  natural  free  will,  can 
neither  understand,  will,  nor  do  that  which  is  spiritually  right, 
good,  and  pleasing  to  God.  Man  is  converted  to  God  and  to  all 
that  is  "thoroughly  good"  only  by  the  grace  and  power  of  God. 
It  is  God's  pleasure  to  work  in  every  man  in  order  that  he  may 
will  and  do  that  which  is  good.  The  reason  why  this  is  not 
accomplished  in  all  men  is,  because  many  wilfully  resist  the 
work  of  God's  grace,  despise  the  means  of  conversion,  and  thus, 
by  their  own  stubborn  and  evil  wills,  frustrate  the  good  and 
gracious  will  of  God.  Man  has  a  free  will;  for  he  does  the 
evil  and  rejects  the  good  freely  and  without  constraint,  with- 
out any  compulsion  on  the  part  of  God.  Furthermore,  in  ex- 
ternal matters,  which  reason  comprehends,  man  also  has  a  free 
will,  in  a  measure.  The  will  of  a  regenerate  Christian  is  set 
free,  inasmuch  as  he  is  able  to  will  that  which  is  pleasing  to 
God,  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  although,  in  this  world,  he  is 
not  able  perfectly  to  do  that  which  is  good.  Falckner  says: 
"I  conceive  this  doctrine  of  free  will  as  follows :  All  the  good 
which  I  will  and  do  I  ascribe  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
and  to  the  working  of  His  good  Spirit  within  me,  render  thanks 
to  Him  for  it,  and  watch  that  I  may  traffic  with  the  pound 
of  grace,  Luke  19,  which  I  have  received,  in  order  that  more 
may  be  given  unto  me,  and  that  I  may  receive  grace  for  grace 
out  of  the  fulness  of  grace  in  Jesus  Christ.   John  1,  16.    On  the 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN   LUTHERANISM.  29 

contrary,  all  the  evil  which  I  will  and  do  I  ascribe  to  my  own 
evil  will  alone,  which  maliciously  deviates  from  God  and  His 
gracious  will,  and  becomes  one  with  the  will  of  the  devil,  the 
world,  and  sinful  flesh.  And  I  am  persuaded  that  if  only  my 
own  will  does  not  dishonestly,  wilfully,  and  stubbornly  resist 
the  converting  gracious  will  of  God,  He,  by  His  Spirit,  will 
bend  and  turn  it  toward  that  which  is  good,  and,  for  the  sake 
of  Christ's  perfect  obedience,  will  not  regard,  nor  impute  unto 
me,  the  obstinacy  cleaving  to  me  by  nature."  In  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  book,  which  was  written  in  the  Dutch  language, 
Falckner  unequivocally  professes  adherence  to  the  Symbols  of 
the  Lutheran  Church,  the  confession  of  his  fathers,  "which  con- 
fession and  faith,"  he  says,  "by  the  grace  of  God  and  the  con- 
vincing testimony  of  His  Word  and  Spirit,  also  dwell  in  me, 
and  shall  continue  to  dwell  in  me  until  my  last,  blessed 
end."   (91  ff.) 

JOSHUA  KOCHERTHAL. 

22.  Palatinates  in  Quassaic,  East  and  West  Camp.  — 
Wearying  of  the  afflictions  which  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  the 
persecutions  of  Louis  XIV,  and  Elector  John  Wilhelm,  who 
was  a  tool  of  the  Jesuits,  had  brought  upon  them,  hosts  of 
Palatinates  came  to  America  in  quest  of  liberty  and  happiness. 
The  cruelties  and  barbarities  which  the  French  king,  the  French 
officers,  and  the  French  soldiers  perpetrated  against  innocent 
men,  women,  and  children  are  described  by  Macaulay  as  fol- 
lows: "The  French  commander  announced  to  near  half  a  mil- 
lion of  human  beings  that  he  granted  them  three  days  of  grace. 
Soon  the  roads  and  fields,  which  then  lay  deep  in  snow,  were 
blackened  by  innumerable  multitudes  of  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren flying  from  their  homes.  Many  died  of  cold  and  hunger; 
but  enough  survived  to  fill  the  streets  of  all  the  cities  of 
Europe  with  lean  and  squalid  beggars,  who  had  once  been 
thriving  farmers  and  shopkeepers.  Meanwhile  the  work  of 
destruction  began.  The  flames  went  up  from  every  market- 
place, every  hamlet,  every  parish  church,  every  country  seat, 
within  the  devoted  provinces.  The  fields  where  the  corn  had 
been  sown  were  plowed  up.  The  orchards  were  hewn  down. 
No  promise  of  a  harvest  was  left  on  the  fertile  plains  where 
had  once  been  Frankenthal.     Not  a  vine,  not  an  almond  tree, 


30  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

was  to  be  seen  on  the  slopes  of  the  sunny  hills  round  what 
had  once  been  Heidelberg."  (Wolf,  Lutherans  in  America,  175.) 
Great  numbers  of  emigrants  from  Hesse,  Baden,  and  Wuerttem- 
berg  whose  fate  had  been  similar  to  that  of  the  Palatinates, 
joined  them.  Permission  to  settle  in  the  New  World  was 
sought  from  the  authorities  in  London,  where  in  1709,  accord- 
ing to  various  authorities,  from  ten  to  twenty  thousand  Pala- 
tines, as  they  were  all  designated,  were  assembled,  waiting  for 
an  opportunity  to  emigrate.  Joshua  Kocherthal,  Lutheran 
pastor  at  Landau  in  Bavaria,  was  the  leader  of  the  emigrants 
from  the  Palatinate.  In  1704  he  went  to  London  to  make 
the  necessary  arrangements.  Two  years  later  he  published 
a  booklet  on  the  proposed  emigration.  In  1708  he  sailed  for 
the  New  World  with  the  first  fifty-three  souls,  landing  in  New 
York  at  the  close  of  December,  1708,  or  the  beginning  of  Jan- 
uary, 1709,  after  a  long  and  stormy  voyage  lasting  about  four 
months.  It  was  the  first  German  Lutheran  congregation  in  the 
State  of  New  York.  After  spending  the  winter  in  the  city, 
they  settled  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Hudson,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Quassaic,  where  Newburgh  is  now  located.  Every  person 
received  a  grant  of  fifty  acres  and  the  congregation  five  hundred 
acres  of  church  land,  which,  however,  the  British  Governor  in 
1750  awarded  to  the  Episcopalians.  In  July,  1709,  Kocherthal, 
entrusting  his  congregation  to  the  care  of  Falckner,  whose  ac- 
quaintance he  had  made  during  the  winter  in  New  York,  re- 
turned to  London  to  obtain,  through  a  personal  interview  with 
the  Queen,  grants  of  money  which  were  needed  to  supply  the 
utterly  destitute  colonists  with  the  necessary  means  of  sub- 
sistence until  the  land  was  made  arable.  He  returned  in  June, 
1710,  with  a  multitude  of  emigrants  in  eleven  ships.  But, 
while  3,000  had  sailed  from  London,  only  2,200  were  destined 
to  reach  their  homes  in  the  New  World,  800  having  died  while 
en  route  and  in  quarantine  on  Governor's  Island.  A  tract  of 
land  comprising  40  acres  for  each  person  was  assigned  to  them 
at  the  foot  of  the  Catskill  Mountains,  about  100  miles  north 
of  New  York.  They  settled  on  both  sides  of  the  Hudson, 
naming  their  settlements  East  and  West  Camp,  respectively. 

23.  Hewing  Their  Way  to  the  Mohawk  Valley.  —  The 
immigrants  had  been  promised  prosperity;     but  the  English 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  31 

officials  were  actuated  by  selfish  motives  and  shamefully  ex- 
ploited the  colonists.  They  were  ordered  to  engage  in  the 
production  of  tar  and  pitch,  and  were  treated  as  slaves  and 
Redemptioners,  i.  e.,  emigrants,  shamefully  defrauded  by  "the 
Newlanders  ( Neulaender ) ,"  as  Muhlenberg  designated  the  con- 
scienceless Dutch  agents  who  decoyed  Germans  from  their 
homes  and  in  America  sold  them  into  slavery,  at  least  tempo- 
rarily. The  contract  for  provisioning  the  Palatinate  colonists 
was  let  to  Livingston,  a  cruel  and  greedy  Scot,  from  whom 
Governor  Hunter  had  purchased  the  land  on  which  the  Palati- 
nates were  settled.  Livingston  now  sought  to  enrich  himself 
by  reducing  both  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  food  furnished 
to  the  colonists.  Hunger  was  common  among  the  settlers,  be- 
coming especially  acute  in  winter,  as  they  had  not  been  given 
sufficient  time  to  plant  crops  for  themselves.  Dissatisfaction 
spread  throughout  the  ranks  of  the  Palatinates,  and  when  the 
Governor  refused  to  heed  their  appeal  for  relief,  fifty  families 
left  the  settlement  and  hewed  their  way  through  the  primeval 
forest  to  the  Mohawk  Valley,  where  they  obtained  fertile  lands 
from  the  Indians  and  founded  the  Schoharie  congregation  in 
the  winter  of  1712/13.  The  governor  declared  the  fugitives 
rebels;  but  still  more  followed  in  March,  making  their  way 
through  three  feet  of  snow.  The  Lutherans  of  Schoharie  were 
the  first  white  people  to  live  at  peace  with  the  Indians.  In 
order  to  obtain  a  clear  title  to  the  lands  in  the  Schoharie 
Valley,  which  the  governor  refused  to  grant  them,  John  Conrad 
Weiser  was  sent  to  England.  On  his  way  he  was  plundered 
by  pirates;  in  England  he  was  thrown  into  a  sponging  house 
on  account  of  debts.  After  regaining  his  liberty,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  return  to  Schoharie  broken  in  health  and  without 
accomplishing  his  purpose.  The  result  was  that  33  families 
left  Schoharie  and  settled  in  Tulpehocken,  Pa.,  in  1723.  Among 
those  who  remained  in  West  Camp  was  Pastor  Kocherthal.  He 
continued  faithfully  to  serve  his  congregations,  including  Scho- 
harie, until  his  end,  December  27,  1719.  He  lies  buried  in 
West  Camp.  A  weather-beaten  stone  slab  marks  his  resting- 
place.  The  inscription  calls  him  "The  Joshua  and  pure  Lu- 
theran pastor  of  the  High  Germans  in  America  on  the  east 
and  west  bank  of  the  Hudson."  In  the  original  the  epitaph 
reads  complete  as  follows:    "Wisse  Wandersman  Unter  diesem 


32  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISAT. 

Steine  ruht  nebst  seiner  Sibylla  Charlotte  Ein  reenter  Wanders- 
mann  Der  Hoch-Teutschen  in  America  ihr  Josua  Und  derselben 
an  Der  ost  und  west  seite  Der  Hudson  Rivier  rein  lutherischer 
Prediger  Seine  erste  ankunft  war  mit  L'd  Lovelace  1707/8  den 
1.  Januar  Seine  sweite  mit  Col.  Hunter  1710  d.  14  Juny  Seine 
Englandische  reise  unterbrach  Seine  Seelen  Himmlische  reise 
an  St.  Johannis  Tage  1719  Beglierstu  mehr  zu  wissen  So  unter 
Suche  in  Welanchtons  vaterland  Wer  war  de  Kocherthal  Wer 
Harschias  Wer  Winchenbach  B.  Berkenmayer  S  Heurtein 
L  Brevort  MDCCXLIL"  (111.)  The  successors  of  Kocher- 
thal were:  Justus  Falckner,  until  1723;  Daniel  Falckner,  the 
brother  of  Justus,  who  had  served  several  German  congrega- 
tions along  the  Raritan,  till  1725;  Berkenmeyer;  and  from 
1743  to  1788  Peter  N.  Sommer,  who  preached  in  thirteen  other 
settlements  and  baptized  84  Indians.  He  died  October  27,  1795. 
Sommer's  aversion  to  the  Halle  pastors  probably  was  the  reason 
why  he  took  no  part  in  the  organization  of  the  New  York 
Ministerium  at  Albany  in  1786. 

WILLIAM  CHRISTOPHER  BERKENMEYER. 

24.  Activity  in  New  York.  —  In  New  York  Falckner  was 
succeeded  by  W.  Ch.  Berkenmeyer  (1686 — 1751).  Berkenmeyer 
was  born  in  the  duchy  of  Lueneburg  and  had  studied  theology 
at  Altorf  under  Dr.  Sontag,  a  theologian  whose  maxim  was, 
"Quo  propius  Luthero,  eo  melior  theologus,  The  closer  to 
Luther,  the  better  a  theologian."  Upon  request  of  the  New 
York  congregation  the  Lutheran  Consistory  of  Amsterdam,  in 
1724,  called  him  to  serve  the  Dutch  congregations  in  the  Hud- 
son Valley.  While  en  route  to  his  new  charge,  he  was  informed 
that  a  vagabond  preacher  by  the  name  of  J.  B.  von  Dieren, 
a  former  tailor,  had  succeeded  in  ingratiating  himself  with  the 
New  York  Lutherans,  and  had  been  accepted  as  their  preacher. 
Nothing  daunted,  Berkenmeyer  continued  his  journey,  landing 
at  New  York  in  1725.  At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Church 
Council  he  won  the  hearts  of  all,  even  of  those  who  had  been 
instrumental  in  foisting  von  Dieren  upon  the  congregation,  who 
now  stood  convicted  as  an  ignorant  pretender,  and  therefore 
was  dismissed.  Dieren  continued  his  agitation  in  other  Lu- 
theran   congregations    until    Berkenmeyer    in    1728    published 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEEANISM.  33 

a  tract  fully  exposing  the  character  of  the  impudent  impostor. 
From  the  beginning  Berkenmeyer's  labors  were  blessed  abun- 
dantly. Bringing  with  him  money  collected  by  the  Lutherans 
in  Amsterdam  and  receiving  additional  financial  help  from 
London  and  the  congregations  of  Daniel  Falckner,  Berkenmeyer 
was  enabled  to  resume  the  building  operations  in  New  York 
begun  as  early  as  1670  (1705).  On  June  29,  1729,  the  New 
Trinity  Church  was  dedicated.  Berkenmeyer's  parish  covered 
a  large  territory.  In  addition  to  New  York,  Albany,  and 
Loonenburg  he  served  the  congregations  at  Hackensack,  Rari- 
tan,  Clavernack,  Newton,  West  Camp,  Tar  Bush,  Camp,  Rhein- 
beck  (where  a  new  church  was  dedicated  on  the  First  Sunday 
in  Advent,  1728),  Schenectady,  Coxsackie,  and  in  the  Schoharie 
Valley.  In  Schoharie  he  baptized  the  infant  daughter  of  Con- 
rad Weiser,  who  eighteen  years  later  became  the  wife  of  Henry 
Melchior  Muhlenberg.  In  the  absence  of  churches,  Berken- 
meyer preached  in  private  dwellings  or,  more  frequently,  in 
barns.  At  one  of  these  services  fourteen  children  were  bap- 
tized in  the  "Lutheran  barn"  of  Pieter  Lassing.  (176.)  This 
immense  parish  was  divided  in  1731,  Berkenmeyer  removing  to 
Loonenburg.  Pastor  Christian  Knoll  of  Holstein  was  called  to 
take  charge  of  the  southern  congregations  in  and  about  New 
York.  Berkenmeyer  delivered  his  farewell  sermon  November  26, 
1732,  and  sixteen  days  later  Knoll  preached  his  first  sermon. 
In  1734  the  Lutheran  clergy  received  an  addition  in  the  person 
of  Magister  Wolff,  who  succeeded  the  aged  and  infirm  Daniel 
Falckner  at  Raritan  and  five  other  congregations  in  New  Jersey. 
In  the  same  year  the  three  Lutheran  pastors  and  a  number  of 
congregations  organized  the  first  Lutheran  Synod  in  America, 
with  Berkenmeyer  as  chairman.  Its  first  and  only  convention 
of  which  we  have  record  was  held  at  Raritan,  August  20,  1735; 
nine  congregations  were  represented  by  delegates.  The  chief 
business  of  Synod  was  to  settle  a  quarrel  between  Wolff  and 
his  congregations,  one  of  the  charges  preferred  against  the 
pastor  being  that  he  read  his  sermons  instead  of  delivering 
them  from  memory  ( "statt  aus  dem  Haupte  zu  predigen" ) . 
Peace  was  restored,  but  temporarily  only.  Berkenmeyer  con- 
tinued his  ministry  in  Loonenburg  for  twenty  years.  Like 
other  Lutheran  divines  of  his  day,  the  Swedes  and  Salzburgers 
Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  3 


34  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

not  excepted,  he  kept  two  slaves,  whom  he  himself  united  in 
marriage  in  1744.  Also  during  his  declining  years  Berken- 
meyer  experienced  much  sorrow.  His  end  came  on  August  26, 
1751.  The  closing  words  of  his  epitaph  are:  "He  has  elected 
us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  there  is  there- 
fore now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 
In  the  same  year  Knoll,  who,  owing  to  disputes  arising  from 
the  language  question,  had  been  compelled  to  resign  at  New 
York,  took  charge  of  the  Loonenburg  congregation  and  con- 
tinued there  until  1765. 

25.  Berkenmeyer's  Sturdy  Lutheranism.  —  Though  not 
clear  in  some  points  and,  at  times,  rigorous  in  discipline, 
Berkenmeyer  stood  for  a  sound  and  decided  Lutheranism.  His 
orthodoxy  appears  from  the  very  library  which  he  selected  and 
brought  with  him  for  the  congregation  in  New  York,  consisting 
of  twenty  folios,  fifty-two  quartos,  twenty-three  octavos,  and 
six  duodecimos,  among  them  Calovius's  Biblia  Illustrata,  Bal- 
duinus's  Commentarius  in  Epistolas  8.  Pauli,  Dedekennus's 
Consilia,  Huelsemann's  De  Auxiliis  Gratiae,  Brochmand's  Sys- 
tema,  etc.  Owing  to  his  staunch  orthodoxy,  Berkenmeyer  also 
had  an  aversion  to  the  Pietists,  and  refused  to  cooperate  with 
Muhlenberg  and  his  colaborers  from  Halle.  He  disapproved  of, 
and  opposed,  the  unionistic  practises  of  the  Swedish  and  Halle 
pastors.  Speaking  of  Berkenmeyer's  pastorate  in  New  York, 
Dr.  Graebner  remarks :  "In  a  firm  and  faithful  manner  he  had 
preserved  for  himself  and  his  congregation,  both  in  doctrine 
and  practise,  a  staunch  Lutheran  character,  which  banished  the 
very  thought  of  fraternizing  with  the  heterodox.  At  the  same 
time,  though  a  German  theologian  and  commanding  an  easy, 
flexible,  and  forceful  Latin,  he  was  a  genial  Dutchman  among 
his  Dutch  parishioners,  perfectly  adapting  himself  to  their 
manners."  (186.)  He  was  firm  and  consistent,  but  not  fanat- 
ical, bigoted,  or  narrow.  "In  1746,  when  the  Reformed  pastor 
Freylinghausen  lay  ill  with  the  smallpox  at  Albany,  Berken- 
meyer visited  him.  But  never  did  he  establish  an  intimately 
friendly  intercourse  with  the  Reformed  pastors,  and  in  church- 
matters  he  was  determined  to  keep  himself  and  his  people 
separate  from  the  Reformed.  In  the  German  congregations, 
such  as  those  in  and  about  Newton,  where  Lutherans  lived 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  35 

among  the  Reformed,  with  whom,  after  suffering  together  with 
them,  they  had  emigrated,  warnings  against  apostasy  and 
unionistic  practises  were  even  more  necessary  than  in  the  Dutch 
congregations,  especially,  as  the  Reformed  made  concessions  to 
Lutherans  uniting  with  them,  e.  g.,  by  having  the  Lutheran 
children  recite  the  Lutheran  Catechism  in  the  catechetical  in- 
structions of  children  ( Christenlehren ) .  Berkenmeyer,  how- 
ever, knew  how  to  keep  awake  the  Lutheran  conscience.  When, 
in  1736,  the  Calvinists  on  the  Katsbaan,  several  miles  from 
Newton,  forbade  their  lector  henceforth  to  have  the  children 
recite  the  Lutheran  Catechism,  this  led  to  a  declaration  on  the 
part  of  the  Lutherans  to  the  effect  that  they  would  no  longer 
attend  services  at  their  church.  At  Schoharie,  Berkenmeyer 
had  to  preach  in  the  Reformed  church;  but  that  did  not  pre- 
vent him  from  testifying  against  joint  services.  He  declared 
that  in  such  union,  without  unity  in  the  faith,  the  pastor  was 
required  to  become  'either  a  dumb  dog  or  a  mameluke';  the 
theme  of  his  sermon  here  was :  'Our  Duty  to  Defend  the  Truth 
against  the  Gainsayers.'  "  (207.)  The  same  earnestness  char- 
acterized Berkenmeyer's  dealings  with  pastors,  whom  he  recog- 
nized only  after  they  had  confessed  their  Lutheranism  in  clear 
and  unequivocal  terms. 

DETERIORATION  IN  NEW  YORK. 

26.  Germans  versus  Dutch. — About  1742  the  language 
question  became  acute  in  New  York.  Dutch  immigration  had 
ceased,  while  Germans  arrived  in  ever  increasing  numbers.  As 
a  result  the  German  communicants  in  New  York  outnumbered 
the  Dutch  about  8  to  1.  As  the  spokesmen  of  the  German 
element  made  unreasonable  demands  and  met  with  un- 
reasonable opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Dutch,  frequent  and 
stormy  meetings  became  the  order  of  the  day.  Pastor  M.  C. 
Knoll  had  labored  faithfully;  but,  difficulties  constantly  in- 
creasing, he  lost  control  of  the  situation,  and  toward  the  close 
of  1750  was  compelled  to  resign  his  charge.  Prior  to  this  some 
of  the  Germans  had  withdrawn  from  Trinity  Church,  and 
organized  as  Christ  Church,  suffering  themselves  to  be  served 
by  unworthy  characters,  such  as  J.  L.  Hofgut,  J.  F.  Ries,  P.  H. 
Rapp,  J.  G.  Wiesner,  and  J.  M.  Schaeffer.     A  better  element 


36  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

having  come  into  control,  they  called  men  whom  H.  M.  Muhlen- 
berg recommended :  I.  N.  Kurtz,  who  had  been  active  in  Tulpe- 
hocken;  I.  G.  Baugher  (Bager),  who  came  to  America  from 
Helmstedt  in  1752,  served  New  York  from  1754  to  1767,  and 
died  in  1794;  J.  S.  Gerock,  who  was  sent  to  America  by  the 
Consistory  of  Wuerttemberg  in  1755,  served  in  Lancaster,  then 
in  New  York  from  1767  to  1773,  and  died  in  1787;  F.  C.  A. 
Muhlenberg,  educated  in  Halle,  who  served  Tulpehocken  in 
1770,  New  York  from  1773  to  1776,  and  (having  fled  from 
New  York  when  the  British  captured  the  city  in  the  Revo- 
lutionary War)  New  Hanover  in  1777.  After  1779  F.  C.  A. 
Muhlenberg  entered  political  life,  being  elected  a  member  of 
the  Continental  Congress  and  Speaker  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Legislature.  He  died  in  1801.  In  the  Dutch  Trinity  Church 
peace  was  restored  by  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg,  who  served 
as  Knoll's  successor  from  1751  to  1753.  Muhlenberg  cultivated 
an  intimate  and  fraternal  intercourse  with  the  Reformed  and 
Episcopalian  pastors,  and  inaugurated  a  period  of  pietism  and 
unionism  in  New  York.  On  his  departure  he  recommended 
Pastor  J.  A.  Weygand,  who  had  been  serving  the  Raritan  con- 
gregations since  his  arrival,  in  1748,  from  Halle.  Weygand  re- 
mained in  New  York  until  1767.  In  1755  he  published  an 
English  translation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  During  his 
pastorate  a  parochial  school  was  organized  and  housed  in  a 
building  erected  for  that  purpose.  He  died  in  1770.  Weygand's 
successor  was  Houseal  (Hausihl),  who  had  emigrated  from 
Strassburg  in  1752.  In  1771  he  conducted  the  last  service  in 
the  Dutch  language.  In  1776  the  church  was  reduced  to  ashes 
by  the  great  fire  which  destroyed  about  one-fourth  of  the  city. 
Though  losing  all  his  personal  property,  he  rescued  the  docu- 
ments and  records  of  the  old  congregation.  Being  an  ardent 
loyalist,  he  received  permission  from  the  British  commander 
to  use  the  Presbyterian  church,  where  his  services  were  also 
attended  by  the  Hessian  troops  of  the  army.  When  peace  was 
concluded,  Houseal  emigrated  to  Halifax,  where  he  was  or- 
dained in  the  Episcopal  Church  and  made  chaplain  of  the  gar- 
rison.   Here  he  died  in  1799. 

27.  Union  Lauded  by  Kunze  and  Schaeff er.  —  The  two 
Lutheran  congregations  in  New  York  reunited  in  1783.     The 


EABLT  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  37 

first  pastor  to  serve  them  was  J.  C.  Kunze.  He  was  born  in 
the  vicinity  of  Mansfeld,  received  his  preparatory  education 
at  Halle  and  other  schools,  and  studied  theology  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leipzig.  After  a  brief  service  in  Halle,  Kunze  was 
called  to  be  third  pastor  in  Philadelphia.  He  landed  in  New 
York,  September  22,  1770,  accompanied  by  two  sons  of  Muhlen- 
berg, who  had  studied  in  Halle.  In  Philadelphia,  where  he 
married  Muhlenberg's  daughter,  Kunze  conducted  a  Seminary 
from  1773  till  its  close  in  1776,  and  then  successively  occupied 
the  chairs  of  Philosophy  and  of  Oriental  languages  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania.  In  1773  this  institution  awarded  him 
the  title  of  Doctor  of  Divinity.  In  the  following  year  he  re- 
ceived the  call  from  the  reunited  Lutheran  congregation  in 
New  York,  which  he  accepted.  He  entered  upon  his  new  labors 
with  great  zeal,  and  met  with  no  little  success,  confirming 
87  persons  in  the  first  six  months.  Kunze  laid  especial  stress 
upon  the  English,  which  hitherto  had  been  greatly  neglected. 
He  also  educated  young  men  for  the  English  ministry.  A  year 
after  his  arrival  in  New  York  he  published  "The  Rudiments  of 
the  Shorter  Catechism  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther,"  and  ten  years 
later,  1795,  the  first  English  Ev.  Lutheran  Hymn-  and  Prayer- 
book.  In  the  same  year  he  issued  a  new  translation  of  the 
Small  Catechism,  containing,  besides  the  six  chief  parts,  also 
the  Christian  Questions,  103  fundamental  questions,  and  a  "Sys- 
tematic Presentation  of  the  Order  of  Salvation."  (527.)  Kunze 
was  also  the  first  president  of  the  New  York  Ministerium, 
organized  at  Albany  in  1786.  At  his  burial,  in  1807,  the  Re- 
formed Pastor  Runkel  delivered  the  funeral  oration.  While 
a  learned  man,  a  hard  worker,  a  man  of  great  influence,  a  man 
also  who  sought  to  familiarize  not  only  the  German,  but  also 
the  English  element  of  his  church  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
Catechism,  Kunze  was  not  a  sound  and  staunch  Lutheran  on 
the  order  of  Berkenmeyer  or  Falckner.  He  had  no  adequate 
appreciation  for  the  doctrinal  differences  which  separate  the 
Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.  In  the  appendix  to  his  Hymn- 
and  Prayer-book  of  1795  Kunze  wrote:  "That  the  two  Protes- 
tant Churches  have  often  shown  animosities  against  one  an- 
other is  true  and  to  be  lamented.  But  that  such  times  are 
past  is  a  truth  more  joyful  than  another,  which  likewise  ought 
not  to  be  concealed,  and  [viz.]  that  true  piety  in  the  Evangelical 


38  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEBANISM. 

Church  stands  highly  in  need  of  a  new  and  energetic  revival, 
and  that  it  is  doubtful  in  many  cases  whether  the  present 
union  of  the  two  churches,  which,  however,  every  true  Chris- 
tian will  wish  to  be  indissoluble,  has  its  origin  in  enlightened 
ideas  or  in  worldly  interest,  in  brotherly  love  or  in  indiffer- 
ence." (528.)  Kunze's  pupil,  G.  Strebeck,  who  had  been  called 
to  preach  English  in  the  Old  Congregation,  organized  an  Eng- 
lish Lutheran  Church  instead,  and  in  1804,  with  a  part  of  his 
English  flock,  united  with  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  English 
congregation  now  called  as  its  pastor  a  man  who  had  been  ex- 
communicated from  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  account  of 
Chiliasm,  who,  in  turn,  was  succeeded  by  a  former  Methodist 
preacher,  under  whom,  in  1810,  the  entire  congregation  followed 
Strebeck  into  the  Episcopalian  fold. 

28.  Reformation  Jubilee  in  1817.  —  In  the  mother  con- 
gregation Kunze,  who  died  1807,  was  succeeded  by  F.  W. 
Geissenhainer.  When  the  latter  was  no  longer  able  to  supply 
the  growing  need  for  English  services,  F.  C.  Schaeffer  was  called 
in  his  stead,  with  the  duty  expressly  imposed  upon  him  of 
preaching  also  in  English.  In  1817,  at  the  tercentenary  of 
the  Reformation,  Schaeffer  arranged  a  great  celebration  in 
which  he  was  assisted  by  an  Episcopalian,  a  Reformed,  and 
a  Moravian  pastor.  Dr.  Spaeth:  "Here  also  [in  America,  as 
in  Prussia]  a  great  Reformation  Jubilee  was  celebrated  in  1817. 
Here  also  it  was,  in  the  first  place,  of  a  unionistic  character. 
The  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  invited  the  Moravians,  Epis- 
copalians, Reformed,  and  Presbyterians  to  unite  with  them  in 
this  celebration.  In  the  city  of  New  York  the  eloquent  Lu- 
theran pastor,  F.  C.  Schaeffer,  having  kept  the  jubilee  in  the 
morning  with  his  own  congregation,  delivered  an  English  dis- 
course in  the  afternoon  in  St.  Paul's  Episcopal  Church  on  the 
text,  'I  believe,  therefore  I  have  spoken.'  Thousands  were  un- 
able to  find  admittance  to  the  service,  so  great  was  the  throng." 
(C.  P.  Krauth,  1,  322.)  Rejoicing  in  the  growth  of  unionism, 
Schaeffer  said  in  his  sermon:  "In  Germany,  the  cradle  of  the 
Reformation,  the  'Protestants'  are  daily  becoming  more  united 
in  the  bond  of  Christian  charity.  Whilst  the  asperities,  which 
indeed  too  often  affected  the  Great  Reformers  themselves,  no 
longer  give  umbrage;    whilst  the  most  laudable  and  beneficial 


EAELY  HISTOEY  OF  AMEBICAN  LTJTHEBANISM.  39 

exertions  are  universally  made  by  evangelical  Christians  to 
remove  every  sectarian  barrier,  the  'Evangelical  Church,'  ex- 
tending her  pale,  becomes  more  firmly  established.  And  though 
we  have  melancholy  evidence  that  the  state  and  disposition  of 
the  present  Romish  Church  calls  loudly  for  a  reformation,  we 
must  not  omit  the  pleasing  fact  that  many  of  her  worthy  mem- 
bers are  conscientiously  alive  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  en- 
lightened Christianity."  (Gr.,  654.)  But,  instead  of  more 
firmly  establishing  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  indifferentism 
and  unionism  introduced  into  New  York  by  the  Halle  Pietists 
soon  opened  wide  her  gates  to  a  flood  of  rationalism. 

NEW  YORK  MINISTERIUM. 

29.  Eliminating  Confession.  —  In  1786  the  New  York 
Ministerium  was  organized  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  by  Pastors  Kunze, 
of  New  York  City,  H.  Moeller,  of  Albany,  and  J.  S.  Schwerd- 
feger,  of  Fellstown,  and  two  lay  delegates,  one  from  New  York, 
the  other  from  Albany.  Eight  of  the  eleven  pastors  in  this  dis- 
trict took  no  part  in  the  organization.  Six  years  elapsed  before 
another  meeting  convened.  The  minutes  of  the  first  convention 
state:  "In  view  of  the  fact  that  only  three  pastors  and  two 
delegates  appeared,  those  present  considered  it  advisable  to 
look  upon  themselves  only  as  a  committee  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  State  of  New  York."  The  Lutheran  Cyclopaedia 
says:  "Though  no  records  prior  to  the  meeting  at  Albany  are 
extant,  Dr.  Kunze  stated  in  1795,  and  again  in  1800,  that  the 
New  York  Ministerium,  revived  in  1786,  had  been  organized 
as  early  as  1773  by  F.  A.  C.  Muhlenberg,  then  pastor  in  New 
York."  (490.)  Dr.  Jacobs:  "Concerning  the  fact  that  any  meet- 
ing was  actually  held,  we  are  in  ignorance;  but  Dr.  Kunze, 
who  ought  to  be  most  competent  authority,  declares:  'To  the 
late  Dr.  Henry  Muhlenberg  belongs  the  immortal  honor  of 
having  formed  in  Pennsylvania  a  regular  ministry,  and,  what 
is  somewhat  remarkable,  to  one  of  his  sons,  who  officiated  as 
Lutheran  minister  from  the  year  1773  to  1776  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  that  of  having  formed  the  Evangelical  Ministry  of 
New  York  State.'  The  thought  was  carried  out  in  1786."  (300.) 
In  a  letter  to  his  father,  then  visiting  in  Georgia,  F.  A.  C. 
Muhlenberg  mentions  a  meeting  of  the  Lutheran  ministers  in 


40  EAELY  HISTOEY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEBANISM. 

the  Province  of  New  York,  planned  for  April,  1774.  (Graeb- 
ner,  450. )  The  Ministerium  organized  at  Albany  was  a  dupli- 
cate of  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium.  According  to  the  Min- 
utes a  resolution  was  adopted  to  regard  "the  constitution  of 
the  Ev.  Luth.  Church  of  Pennsylvania  as  their  law."  (469.)  In 
1792  the  New  York  Ministerium  adopted  the  new  constitution 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  which  contained  no  reference  to  the 
Lutheran  Confessions  whatever,  merely  retaining  the  name  Lu- 
theran. At  the  convention  in  Rheinbeck,  1797,  Dr.  Kunze  being 
the  leading  spirit  and  president,  the  New  York  Ministerium 
passed  the  notorious  resolution:  "Resolved,  That,  on  account 
of  the  intimate  relation  subsisting  between  the  English  Episco- 
palian and  Lutheran  Churches,  the  identity  of  their  doctrine, 
and  the  near  approach  of  their  church-discipline,  this  consistory 
will  never  acknowledge  a  newly  erected  Lutheran  church  in 
places  where  the  members  may  partake  of  the  services  of  the 
said  English  Episcopal  Church."  (528.)  Seven  years  later  this 
resolution  was  rescinded,  not,  indeed,  for  confessional  reasons, 
but  in  the  interest  of  expediency  and  policy,  because  in  1804 
G.  Strebeck,  with  a  part  of  his  English  congregation  in  New 
York,  had  been  received  by  the  Episcopalians.  Spaeth  remarks 
with  respect  to  the  Rheinbeck  resolution:  "A  fitting  parallel 
to  this  resolution  is  found  in  the  advances  made  by  the  Mother 
Synod  of  Pennsylvania  toward  a  union  with  the  German  Re- 
formed Church,  first  in  1819  for  the  joint  establishment  of 
a  common  Theological  Seminary,  and  afterward,  in  1822,  for 
a  general  union  with  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Church.  See 
Minutes  of  1822."  ( C.  P.  Krauth,  1,  320. ) 

30.  President  Quitman  the  Rationalist.  —  The  unionism 
and  indifferentism  of  the  New  York  Ministerium  naturally  de- 
veloped and  merged  into  Socinianism  and  Rationalism  under 
its  liberal,  but  most  able  and  influential  leader,  Dr.  F.  H.  Quit- 
man (1760 — 1832).  "Quitman,"  says  Graebner,  "was  a  stately 
person,  over  six  feet  in  height  and  of  correspondingly  broad  and 
powerful  build.  Already  at  his  entrance  in  Halle,  one  of  the 
professors  greeted  the  nineteen-year-old  giant  with  the  words, 
'Quanta  ossa!  Quantum  robur!  What  bones!  What  power!'  " 
In  his  subsequent  intercourse  with  the  polite  world  Quitman 
acquired  a  fine  tact  and  measured,  dignified  ways.    At  the  same 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  41 

time  he  was  a  man  of  excellent  parts,  a  master  at  repartee, 
with  a  keen  intellect  and  a  firm  will,  and  in  every  respect 
a  born  leader."  (532.)  He  was  the  only  Lutheran  minister 
who  ever  received,  and  perhaps  desired  [  ?]  to  receive,  the 
degree  of  D.  D.  from  Harvard  University.  Quitman,  a  dis- 
ciple of  Teller  and  of  Semler  in  Halle,  was  a  determined 
protagonist  of  German  Rationalism.  In  1807  this  outspoken 
and  consistent  Socinian  was  elected  president  of  the  New  York 
Ministerium,  remaining  in  this  office  till  1825.  When  Quit- 
man accepted  the  call  to  the  Schoharie  congregations,  which 
he  served  beginning  with  the  year  1795,  he  vowed  that  he  would 
preach  the  truth  according  to  the  Word  of  God  and  "our  Sym- 
bolical Books."  Before  long,  however,  he  began  to  reveal  the 
true  inwardness  of  his  character.  In  his  revised  edition  of 
Kunze's  catechism,  which  appeared  in  1804,  authorized  by 
Synod,  the  94th  of  the  "Fundamental  Questions,"  which  treated 
of  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  was  omitted.  Ten  years  later,  1814,  in  his  own 
catechism,  which  was  likewise  published  with  the  approval  of 
Synod,  he  omitted  and  denied  such  fundamental  doctrines  as 
those  of  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ,  the  Vicarious  Atone- 
ment, Justification  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  etc.  In  this  book 
Quitman  and  the  New  York  Ministerium  declare:  "The  Gospel 
teaches  us  that  Christ  suffered  and  died  in  order  to  seal  with 
His  blood  the  doctrine  which  He  had  preached."  (533.)  Two 
years  later  a  "Lutheran  Hymn-book"  appeared,  containing  an 
un-Lutheran  order  of  service,  the  Union  formula  of  distribu- 
tion, a  rationalistic  order  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  rationalistic  prayers  to  the  "great  Father  of  the  Uni- 
verse," etc.  Also  this  book  appeared  "by  order  of  the  Ev.  Luth. 
Ministerium  of  the  State  of  New  York,"  and  with  a  preface 
signed  by  President  Quitman  and  Pastor  Wackerhagen.  (535.) 
When  the  tercentenary  of  the  Reformation  was  celebrated, 
Quitman,  again  by  order  of  the  New  York  Ministerium,  pub- 
lished several  sermons  bearing  on  this  event.  Here  he  says: 
"Reason  and  Revelation  are  the  only  sources  from  which  re- 
ligious knowledge  can  be  drawn,  and  the  norms  according  to 
which  all  religious  questions  ought  to  be  decided.  .  .  .  Are 
not  both,  Reason  and  Revelation,  from  heaven,  always  in  agree- 
ment and  the  one  supporting  the  other?"    Again:    "The  true 


42  EABLY  HISTOBY  OF  AMEBICAN  LUTHEBANISM. 

sense  which  the  Eeformers  connected  with  the  term  'faith'  is 
still  more  apparent  from  the  XX.  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, where  they  explicitly  declare  that  faith  'which  is  pro- 
ductive of  good  works  justifies  man  before  God.'  "  (653.)  This 
rank  Socinianism  and  Rationalism  of  Quitman  and  the  Minis- 
terium  became  firmly  intrenched  and  was  protected  from  attack 
by  the  constitution  of  1816,  which  contained  the  paragraph: 
"And  we  establish  it  as  a  fundamental  rule  of  this  association 
that  the  person  to  be  ordained  shall  not  be  required  to  make 
any  other  engagement  than  this,  that  he  will  faithfully  teach, 
as  well  as  perform  all  other  ministerial  duties,  and  regulate 
his  walk  and  conversation,  according  to  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  contained  in  Holy  Scriptures,  and  that  he  will 
observe  this  constitution  while  he  remains  a  member  of  this 
Ministerium."  (655.)  Within  the  New  York  Ministerium, 
therefore,  ministers  could  no  longer  be  required  by  their  con- 
gregations to  pledge  themselves  on  the  Lutheran  Confessions. 
According  to  the  constitution  doctrinal  discussions  were  per- 
mitted on  the  floor  of  Synod,  but  only  with  the  express  proviso 
"that  the  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism,  the  right  of 
free  research,  be  not  infringed  upon,  and  that  no  endeavor  be 
made  to  elevate  the  Ministerium  to  an  inquisitorial  tribu- 
nal." (679.)  Thus  the  entire  heritage  of  the  Reformation,  to- 
gether with  its  Scriptural  principle  and  cardinal  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  had  gone  by  the  board,  the  unionism  and 
indifferentism  of  the  Halle  pastors  having  served  as  the  first 
entering  wedge  —  just  as  in  Halle  Pietism  and  subjectivism, 
an  essentially  Reformed  growth,  foreign  to  sound  objective 
Lutheranism,  had  given  birth  to  the  ugly  child,  afterwards, 
when  grown  up,  named  Rationalismus  Vulgaris. 

JOHN  CHRISTOPHER  HARTWICK. 

31.  The  Eccentric  Wandering  Bachelor.  —  Hartwick 
(Hartwig,  Hartwich,  Hardwick)  was  born  1714  in  Thuringia, 
Saxony.  Coming  to  New  York  in  1746,  Berkenmeyer  had  him 
subscribe  to  the  Loonenburg  Church  constitution.  His  parish 
included  the  congregations  at  Rheinbeck,  Camp,  Staatsburg, 
Ancrum,  and  Tar  Bush.  The  capriciousness  with  which  Hart- 
wick, who  remained  an  eccentric  bachelor  all  his  life,  performed 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  43 

his  pastoral  duties  soon  gave  rise  to  dissatisfaction.  Com- 
plaints were  lodged  against  him  with  Berkenmeyer,  who  finally 
wrote  against  him  publicly.  In  1750  Muhlenberg  conducted 
a  visitation  in  Hartwick's  congregations,  and  reports  as  fol- 
lows: "He  went  to  Pennsylvania  too  often,  and  that  without 
the  permission  of  his  congregations,  etc.  He  did  not  sufficiently 
prepare  the  young  for  confirmation,  by  simple  instruction  in 
the  Catechism;  is  too  austere  in  his  dealings  with  the  people; 
does  not  always  permit  them  to  see  him;  does  not  maintain 
order  at  public  worship;  begins  services  an  hour  or  two  after 
the  time  fixed;  has  long  hymns  sung  and  preaches  long,  so 
that  those  who  come  from  a  distance  must  drive  till  late  into 
the  night  and  are  compelled  to  neglect  their  cattle.  He  is 
headstrong  (koppich),  that  is,  self-willed,  and  will  not  allow 
any  one  to  tell  him  anything  or  to  give  him  advice.  He  says 
he  did  not  come  here  to  learn  from  the  people,  but  to  teach 
them.  Nor  did  he,  said  they,  cultivate  the  friendship  of  the 
old  spiritual  father  Berkenmeyer,  while  pastors  were  to  set 
a  good  example.  Such  and  similar  were  the  complaints  made 
by  his  opponents."  (G-.,  412.)  The  upshot  of  the  deliberations 
was  that  Raus  was  appointed  vicar  of  the  congregations,  while 
Hartwick  agreed  to  spend  six  months  in  Pennsylvania,  where 
he  previously,  1748,  had  participated  in  the  organization  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod.  In  1752  Hartwick  preached  to  the  Dutch 
congregation  of  New  York,  an  honor  that  was  denied  him  in 

1750  because  of  his  hostility  to  Berkenmeyer.  January  8,  1751, 
Hartwick  addressed  a  pastoral  letter  to  his  congregations,  in 
which  he  not  only  displays  a  lack  of  Lutheran  knowledge,  but 
also  refers  to  Berkenmeyer  as  "brother  Esau"  and  speaks  of 
his  opponents  as  "Edomites"  and  "Esauites."    In  the  spring  of 

1751  Hartwick  returned  to  his  congregations.  When  it  became 
impossible  for  him  to  maintain  his  position  any  longer,  he  went 
to  Reading,  in  1757.  In  the  following  year  he  returned  to 
Columbia  and  Duchess  Co.,  N.  Y.  Subsequently,  wandering 
about  aimlessly,  he  was  seen,  now  in  Hackensack  and  Provi- 
dence, now  (1761)  as  Muhlenberg's  successor  in  the  country 
congregations,  then  in  Maryland,  1763  in  Philadelphia,  then  in 
Winchester,  Va.,  1767  in  New  York,  attending  the  unionistic 
church  dedication,  1774  in  Boston,  and  ten  years  later  again 
in  New  York,  whither  he  returned  to  ingratiate  himself  with 


44  EARLY  HISTOEY  OF  AMEEICAN  LTTTHEBANISM. 

the  Lutherans  who  had  not  emigrated  to  Nova  Scotia  with 
Houseal.  Known  everywhere,  but  at  home  nowhere,  and  usu- 
ally an  unwelcome  guest,  Hartwick  died  suddenly,  July  16, 
1796,  at  East  Camp.  The  last  lines  of  the  dreary  inscription 
on  his  tombstone  are:  "The  brief  span  of  our  days  is  seventy 
to  eighty  years,  and  though  it  was  ever  so  precious,  its  sum 
is  trouble  and  sorrow.  On  the  wings  of  time  we  hasten  to 
a  long  eternity."  In  the  original  the  epitaph  reads  as  fol- 
lows: "Hier  ruhet  Johann  C.  Hartwich  Prediger  der  Evan- 
gelisch  Lutherischen  Kirche.  gebohren  in  Sax  Gotha  de  6  Jen- 
ner  1714  Gestorben  den  16  Julius  1796  Seines  alters  82  Jahre 
6  Monat.  —  Das  kurzgesteckte  Ziel  der  Tage  1st  siebenzig  is 
achtzig  jahr  Ein  innbegrif  von  muh  und  plage  Auch  wenn  es 
noch  so  kostlich  war.  Geflugelt  eilt  mit  uns  die  zeit  In  eine 
lange  ewigkeit."   (657.) 

32.  Hartwick  Seminary  and  Dr.  Hazelius.  —  In  1754 
Hartwick  purchased  21,500  acres  of  land  in  Otsego  Co.,  N.  Y., 
which  he  endeavored  to  colonize  with  a  Lutheran  congregation. 
"The  lease  was  to  contain  a  clause  pledging  every  colonist  to 
unite  with  the  church  within  a  year ;  to  recognize  Pastor  Hart- 
wick or  his  representative  as  his  pastor  and  spiritual  adviser; 
to  attend  his  services  regularly,  decently,  and  with  devotion; 
to  contribute  to  the  maintenance  of  the  church,  school,  and 
parsonage  according  to  ability;  to  have  his  children  baptized, 
and  to  send  them  to  school  and  confirmation  instruction  until 
they  were  confirmed.  The  validity  of  the  lease  was  to  depend 
on  the  fulfilment  of  these  conditions."  (454.)  The  plan  failed, 
and  Hartwick,  in  a  will,  executed  shortly  before  his  death,  left 
his  estate,  valued  at  about  $17,000,  to  found  a  theological  semi- 
nary. Among  the  conditions  were  that  heathen  authors  should 
never  be  read  in  this  institution,  and  that  a  catechism  be  pre- 
pared and  agreed  upon  by  pastors  of  various  churches,  in  which, 
all  controversial  points  being  avoided,  the  essential  questions 
of  the  Christian  religion  were  to  be  answered  by  classic  Bible- 
verses  containing  the  Christian  doctrines.  A  request  was  ap- 
pended to  the  will,  in  which  Congress  was  asked  to  promote 
in  every  possible  way  the  undertaking  planned  by  him  "in  the 
interest  of  humanizing,  civilizing,  moralizing,  and  Christian- 
izing, not  only  the  aborigines  of  North  America,  but  all  other 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  45 

barbarous  peoples  with,  whom  the  United  States  may  have  con- 
nection or  intercourse."  (658.)  In  1797  the  income  of  Hart- 
wick's  estate  was  used  to  pay  Dr.  J.  C.  Kunze,  of  New  York,  for 
his  theological  instruction,  Rev.  A.  T.  Braun,  of  Albany,  for  in- 
struction in  the  classics,  and  Rev.  J.  F.  Ernst  for  teaching  the 
children  on  the  patent  (Otsego  County)  where  the  seminary 
was  to  be  located.  The  foundation  for  a  building  was  laid  in 
1812,  which  was  dedicated  December  15,  1815,  and  opened  by 
Dr.  Hazelius  and  A.  Quitman  (later  renowned  as  a  lawyer, 
statesman,  and  general)  with  19  students.  A  charter  was  ob- 
tained in  1816  containing  the  provision  that  the  director  must 
always  be  a  Lutheran  theologian,  and  that  the  majority  of  the 
trustees  must  be  Lutherans.  When  the  English  congregations 
separated  from  the  New  York  Ministerium  in  1867,  Hartwick 
Seminary  remained  in  their  hands.  In  1871  the  trustees  re- 
quested the  Franckean,  Hartwick,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey 
Synods  each  to  nominate  three  trustees,  the  institution  thus 
coming  under  the  control  of  these  synods.  The  first  director 
of  Hartwick  Seminary  was  Dr.  Hazelius,  who  was  born  in 
Silesia  in  1777,  and  educated  at  the  institution  of  the  Mora- 
vians in  Germany.  He  came  to  America  in  1800  and  was  made 
instructor  in  the  classics  at  the  Moravian  institution  at  Naza- 
reth, Pa.  Before  long  he  was  employed  in  the  theological  de- 
partment. In  1809,  Hazelius  was  ordained  as  Lutheran  pastor 
of  Germantown.  He  was  connected  with  Hartwick  Seminary 
for  fifteen  years,  when  he  was  called  to  Gettysburg  Seminary. 
Three  years  later  (1833)  he  accepted  a  call  to  the  seminary  of 
the  South  Carolina  Synod  at  Lexington,  where  he  died  in  1853. 
Hazelius,  who  did  not  leave  the  Moravians  for  doctrinal  reasons, 
held  that  Lutherans  and  Reformed  do  not  differ  fundamentally. 
Accordingly,  he  also  approved  of  distributing  the  Lord's  Supper 
at  the  same  altar,  to  Lutherans  according  to  their  practise,  to 
others  in  the  manner  of  the  Reformed.  The  minutes  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  General  Synod  held  at  Winchester,  Va., 
May  21,  1853,  record  the  following:  "Whereas,  It  has  pleased 
the  God  of  all  and  Head  of  the  Church  to  remove  from  this 
transitory  scene,  and  to  take  home  to  Himself,  our  venerable 
and  beloved  father  in  Christ,  the  Rev.  Ernest  Lewis  Haze- 
lius, D.  D.,  we,  who  have  been  privileged  to  sit  at  his  feet,  and 
to  be  instructed  by  him  in  the  various  departments  of  sacred 


46  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

service,  desire  to  unite  in  a  public  expression  of  our  grief  at 
his  departure  from  among  us,  and  of  our  high  regard  for  his 
name  and  memory;  therefore,  Resolved,  That  we  duly  appre- 
ciate and  gratefully  acknowledge  the  importance,  efficiency, 
and  happy  results  of  his  long,  faithful,  and  untiring  labors  as 
a  minister  of  our  Church ;  first  a  pastor,  then,  for  fifteen  years, 
as  the  first  professor  and  principal  of  Hartwick  Seminary, 
afterwards  as  professor  at  the  Theological  Seminary  of  this 
body  at  Gettysburg,  for  two  years,  and,  lastly,  up  to  October, 
1852,  as  Professor  of  Theology  at  Lexington,  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina."  (44.) 

GERMANTOWN,   PENNSYLVANIA. 

33.  Early  Germans  in  America.  — :  In  the  Colonial  days, 
next  to  the  English,  the  Germans  were  foremost  in  settling 
and  developing  our  country.  Long  before  the  Puritans  thought 
of  emigrating  to  America,  Germans  had  landed  in  various 
parts  of  the  New  World.  As  early  as  1538,  J.  Cromberger 
established  a  printing-office  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  from  which 
he  issued  numerous  books.  From  1528  to  1546  German  ex- 
plorers came  to  Venezuela  also  with  a  printing-press  and  with 
fifty  miners  to  explore  the  mountains.  A  number  of  German 
craftsmen  accompanied  the  first  English  settlers  who  came  with 
Captain  John  Smith  to  Virginia.  Soon  after  Henry  Hudson 
had  discovered  the  river  which  bears  his  name,  Christiansen, 
a  German,  became  the  explorer  of  that  stream.  He  also  built 
the  first  homes  on  Manhattan  Island,  1613,  and  laid  the  foun- 
dations of  New  Amsterdam  and  Fort  Nassau,  the  present  cities 
of  New  York  and  Albany.  Peter  Minuit  (Minnewit),  the  first 
Director-General  of  New  Netherland,  was  also  a  German,  born 
in  Wesel,  on  the  lower  Rhine.  He  arrived  in  New  Amsterdam 
on  May  4,  1626,  and  one  of  his  first  acts  was  the  purchase  of 
Manhattan  Island,  22,000  acres,  from  the  Indians  for  trinkets 
valued  at  $24.  He  remained  at  his  post  till  1631,  when  he, 
soon  after,  became  the  founder  and  first  director  of  New 
Sweden,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Delaware  River.  He  lost  his  life 
in  the  West  Indies  during  a  hurricane.  His  successor  in  New 
Sweden  was  another  German,  Printz  von  Buchau,  during  whose 
regime,  from  1643  to  1654,  the  colony  became  very  successful 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  47 

and  thereby  aroused  the  jealousy  of  the  Dutch,  who,  while 
Buchau  was  on  a  trip  to  Europe,  attacked  the  colony  and  an- 
nexed it  to  New  Netherland.  When  New  Netherland,  in  1664, 
fell  a  prey  to  the  English,  the  colony  had  among  its  citizens 
numerous  Germans,  most  of  them  Lutherans.  A  native  of 
Hamburg,  Nicholaus  de  Meyer,  became  burgomaster  of  New 
York  in  1676.  Another  German,  Augustin  Herrman,  made 
the  first  reliable  maps  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  J.  Lederer, 
a  young  German  scholar,  who  came  to  Jamestown  in  1668,  was 
the  first  to  explore  Virginia  and  part  of  South  Carolina. 
Lederer's  itinerary,  written  in  Latin,  was  translated  by  Gov- 
ernor Talbot  of  Maryland  into  English  and  published  1672 
in  London;  etc.  However,  it  was  at  Germantown,  at  present 
a  suburb  of  Philadelphia,  that  Germans  broke  ground  for  the 
first  permanent  German  settlement  in  North  America.  A  group 
of  Mennonites,  33  persons,  landed  October  6,  1683.  They  were 
received  by  William  Penn  and  Franz  Daniel  Pastorius,  a  young 
lawyer  from  Frankfort  on  the  Main.  In  Germantown  Gerhard 
Henkel  preached  before  1726,  and  St.  Michael's  Church  was 
begun  1730  and  dedicated  by  the  Swede  J.  Dylander  in  1737. 
Pastorius  had  landed  in  America  with  several  families  on 
August  20  of  the  same  year  in  advance  of  the  Mennonite  emi- 
grants, in  order  to  prepare  for  their  arrival.  The  official  seal 
of  Germantown  bore  the  inscription:  "Vinum,  Linum  et  Tex- 
trinum,"  the  culture  of  grapes,  flax-growing,  and  the  textile 
industries  being  the  principal  occupations  of  the  colony.  In 
1690  W.  Rittenhaus  established  in  Germantown  the  first  paper- 
mill  in  America.  Here  also  Christopher  Sauer,  a  native  of 
WTestphalia,  published  the  first  newspaper  in  German  type,  and 
in  1743  the  first  German  Bible,  antedating,  by  forty  years,  the 
printing  of  any  other  Bible  in  America.  The  Germans  in  the 
cloister  Ephrata,  Pa.,  established  by  the  Tunker,  or  Dunkards, 
also  owned  a  printing-press,  a  paper-mill,  and  a  bookbindery. 
They  published,  in  1749,  the  Maertyrer-Spiegel,  a  folio  of 
1514  pages,  the  greatest  literary  undertaking  of  the  American 
Colonies.  To  the  Germans  enumerated  must  be  added  the  Ger- 
man Reformed;  the  Moravians,  who  founded  Bethlehem  and 
Nazareth  in  Pennsylvania;  the  Salzburgers  in  Georgia;  the 
Palatines  in  New  York;  etc.  And  what  may  be  said  of  Ger- 
mantown, is  true  also  with  regard  to  Philadelphia.     June  6, 


48  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

1734,  Baron  von  Reck  wrote  concerning  the  conglomerate  com- 
munity of  this  city:  "It  is  an  abode  of  all  religions  and  sects, 
Lutherans,  Reformed,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Catholics, 
Quakers,  Dunkards,  Mennonites,  Sabbatarians,  Seventh-day 
Baptists,  Separatists,  Boehmists,  Schwenkfeldians,  Tuchfelder, 
Wohlwuenscher,  Jews,  heathen,  etc."  (Jacobs,  191.)  Concern- 
ing the  thrifty  character  and  all-round  good  citizenship  of  the 
German  immigrants  in  Pennsylvania  generally,  McMaster  re- 
marks :  "Wherever  a  German  farmer  lived,  there  were  industry, 
order,  and  thrift.  The  size  of  the  barns,  the  height  of  the 
fences,  the  well-kept  wheat-fields  and  orchards,  marked  off  the 
domain  of  such  farmer  from  the  lands  of  his  shiftless  Irish 
neighbor."  "They  were,"  says  Scharf  in  his  History  of  Mary- 
land, 2,  423,  "an  industrious,  frugal,  temperate  people,  tilling 
their  farms,  accustomed  to  conflict  with  savage  and  other 
enemies  on  the  border,  and  distinguished  for  their  bold  and 
independent  spirit."  (Jacobs,  235.)  Also  in  the  cause  of  liberty 
and  humanity  the  German  immigrants  in  America  stood  in  the 
front  ranks. 

34.  First  Anti-Slavery  Declaration  in  America.  —  The 
importation  of  negro  slaves  to  America  was  practised  by  the 
English  and  Dutch  since  the  sixteenth  century,  without  dis- 
approval on  the  part  of  the  Puritans  and  Quakers,  who  boasted 
of  being  the  fathers  of  liberty  and  the  defenders  of  human 
rights.  The  inhabitants  of  Germantown,  led  by  Pastorius,  were 
the  first  to  draw  up,  on  February  18,  1688,  a  protest  against 
this  trade  in  human  flesh  and  blood.  The  remarkable  docu- 
ment, addressed  to  the  meeting  of  the  Quakers  in  Pennsylvania, 
reads  as  follows:  "This  is  to  ye  Monthly  Meeting  held  at 
Richard  Warrel's.  These  are  the  reasons  why  we  are  against 
the  traflick  of  men  Body,  as  followeth :  Is  there  any  that  would 
be  done  or  handled  at  this  manner?  to  be  sold  or  made  a  slave 
for  all  the  time  of  his  life?  How  fearful  and  fainthearted  are 
many  on  sea  when  they  see  a  strange  vessel,  being  afraid  it 
should  be  a  Turk,  and  they  should  be  taken  and  sold  for  slaves 
into  Turckey.  Now  what  is  this  better  done  as  Turcks  doe? 
Yea  rather  is  it  worse  for  them,  which  say  they  are  Christians ; 
for  we  hear  that  ye  most  part  of  such  Negers  are  brought 
hither  against  their  will  and  consent ;    and  that  many  of  them 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  49 

are  stollen.  Now,  tho'  they  are  black,  we  cannot  conceive  there 
is  more  liberty  to  have  them  slaves,  as  it  is  to  have  other  white 
ones.  There  is  a  saying,  that  we  shall  doe  to  all  men,  like  as 
we  will  be  done  our  selves ;  making  no  difference  of  what  gen- 
eration, descent  or  colour  they  are.  And  those  who  steal  or 
robb  men,  and  those  who  buy  or  purchase  them,  are  they  not 
all  alike?  Here  is  liberty  of  conscience,  which  is  right  and 
reasonable ;  here  ought  to  be  likewise  liberty  of  ye  body,  except 
of  evildoers  which  is  another  case.  But  to  bring  men  hither, 
or  to  robb  and  sell  them  against  their  will,  we  stand  against. 
In  Europe  there  are  many  oppressed  for  conscience  sake;  and 
here  there  are  those  oppressed  which  are  of  a  black  colour. 
And  we,  who  know  that  men  must  not  commit  adultery,  some 
doe  commit  adultery  in  others,  separating  wifes  from  their 
husbands  and  giving  them  to  others;  and  some  sell  the  chil- 
dren of  those  poor  creatures  to  other  men.  Oh!  doe  consider 
well  this  things,  you  who  doe  it;  if  you  would  be  done  at  this 
manner?  and  if  it  is  done  according  to  Christianity?  You  sur- 
pass Holland  and  Germany  in  this  thing.  This  makes  an  ill 
report  in  all  those  countries  of  Europe,  where  they  hear  off, 
that  ye  Quackers  doe  here  handel  men  like  they  handel  there 
ye  cattel.  And  for  that  reason  some  have  no  mind  or  incli- 
nation to  come  hither,  and  who  shall  maintaine  this  your  cause 
or  plaid  for  it?  Truly  we  can  not  do  so,  except  you  shall  in- 
form us  better  hereoff,  that  Christians  have  liberty  to  practise 
this  things.  Pray !  What  thing  on  the  world  can  be  done  worse 
towards  us,  then  if  men  should  robb  or  steal  us  away,  and  sell 
us  for  slaves  to  strange  countries,  separating  housbands  from 
their  wifes  and  children.  Being  now  this  is  not  done  at  that 
manner,  we  will  be  done  at,  therefore  we  contradict  and  are 
against  this  traffick  of  menbody.  And  we  who  profess  that  it 
is  not  lawful  to  steal,  must  likewise  avoid  to  purchase  such 
things  as  are  stollen  but  rather  help  to  stop  this  robbing  and 
stealing  if  possible;  and  such  men  ought  to  be  delivered  out 
of  ye  hands  of  ye  Robbers  and  sett  free  as  well  as  in  Europe. 
Then  is  Pennsylvania  to  have  a  good  report,  instead  it  hath 
now  a  bad  one  for  this  sacke  in  other  countries.  Especially 
whereas  ye  Europeans  are  desirous  to  know  in  what  manner  ye 
Quackers  doe  rule  in  their  Province;  and  most  of  them  doe 
Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  4 


50  EAELY  HISTOEY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEBANISM. 

look  upon  us  with  an  envious  eye.  But  if  this  is  done  well, 
what  shall  we  say  is  done  evill?  If  once  these  slaves  (which 
they  say  are  so  wicked  and  stubborn  men)  should  joint  them- 
selves, fight  for  their  freedom  and  handel  their  masters  and 
mastrisses  as  they  did  handel  them  before,  will  these  masters 
and  mastrisses  tacke  the  sword  at  hand  and  warr  against  these 
poor  slaves,  like  we  are  able  to  believe,  some  will  not  refuse 
to  doe?  Or  have  these  Negers  not  as  much  right  to  fight  for 
their  freedom,  as  you  have  to  keep  them  slaves?  Now  consider 
well  this  thing,  if  it  is  good  or  bad?  and  in  case  you  find  it 
to  be  good  to  handel  these  blacks  at  that  manner,  we  desire  and 
require  you  hereby  lovingly,  that  you  may  inform  us  here  in, 
which  at  this  time  never  was  done,  that  Christians  have  such 
a  liberty  to  do  so,  to  the  end  we  shall  be  satisfied  in  this  point, 
and  satisfie  lickewise  our  good  friends  and  acquaintances  in 
our  natif  country,  to  whose  it  is  a  terrour  or  fairfull  thing 
that  men  should  be  handeld  so  in  Pennsylvania.  This  is  from 
our  Meeting  at  Germantown  held  ye  18.  of  the  2.  month  1688, 
to  be  delivered  to  the  monthly  meeting  at  Richard  Warrel's. 
gerret  hendericks  derick  op  de  graeff  Francis  Daniell  Pastorius 
Abraham  op  Den  graeff."  (Cronau,  German  Achievements,  20.) 
This  protest  was  submitted  at  several  meetings  of  the  Quakers. 
But  it  was  not  before  1711  that  the  Quakers  introduced  "an 
act  to  prevent  the  importation  of  Negroes  and  Indians  into  the 
province,"  and  still  later  that  they  declared  against  slave- 
trading.  Also  the  Salzburgers  in  Georgia  were  opposed  to 
slavery,  though  Bolzius  himself  was  compelled  to  buy  slaves 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  white  laborers.  The  Germans  also 
were  first  and  most  emphatic  in  condemning  the  cruelties  con- 
nected with  the  "white  slavery"  of  the  so-called  Redemptioners. 

SLAVERY  OF  REDEMPTIONERS. 

35.  Cruelly  Deceived  by  the  Newlanders.  —  Toward  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  some  80,000  Ger- 
mans in  Pennsylvania,  almost  one-half  of  the  entire  inhabitants. 
In  1749  about  12,000  arrived.  Benjamin  Franklin  and  others 
expressed  the  fear :  "They  come  in  such  numbers  that  they  will 
soon  be  able  to  enforce  their  laws  and  language  upon  us,  and, 
uniting  with  the  French,  drive  all  Englishmen  out."    Many  of 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  51 

the  Germans  were  so-called  Redemptioners,  who,  in  payment  of 
their  freight,  were  sold  and  treated  as  slaves  for  a  stipulated 
number  of  years.  Most  of  them  had  been  shamefully  deceived 
and  decoyed  into  the  horrors  of  this  "white  slavery"  by  Dutch 
and  English  merchants  and  conscienceless  agents  whom  Muhlen- 
berg called  Newlanders  ( Neulaender ) .  In  Holland  they  were 
called  "soul-traders."  By  means  of  stories  of  the  fabulous 
wealth  acquired  in  America  they  enticed  Germans  and  other 
emigrants  into  the  signing  of  papers  in  the  English  language 
which  not  only  committed  them  and  their  children  to  slavery, 
but  sometimes  separated  husband  and  wife,  parents  and  chil- 
dren. The  following  is  an  instance  of  the  revolting  horrors 
connected  with  this  trade:  In  1793,  when  the  yellow  fever  pre- 
vailed in  Chester,  a  cargo  of  Redemptioners  was  sent  thither, 
and  a  market  for  nurses  opened.  (Jacobs,  236.)  In  Pennsyl- 
vania this  kind  of  slavery  continued  from  about  1740  to  the 
second  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Quakers  and  other 
"friends  of  liberty  and  humanity"  exploited  the  system.  Fore- 
most among  those  who  exposed  and  condemned  it  were  Ger- 
mans, notably  Muhlenberg,  who  described  the  abominable  busi- 
ness of  the  Newlanders  as  follows:  "These  Newlanders  first 
make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  merchants  in  the  Nether- 
lands. From  them  they  receive,  in  addition  to  free  freight, 
a  certain  gratification  (douceur)  for  each  family  or  each  un- 
married person  which  they  enlist  in  Germany  and  bring  to 
the  traders  in  Holland.  In  order  to  attain  their  object,  they 
resort  to  all  manner  of  tricks.  As  long  as  the  comedy  requires 
it,  they  make  a  great  show  in  dress,  frequently  look  at  their 
watches,  and  make  a  pretense  of  great  wealth,  in  order  to  ex- 
cite a  desire  within  the  hearts  of  people  to  emigrate  to  so 
happy  and  rich  a  country.  They  give  such  descriptions  of 
America  as  make  one  believe  it  to  contain  nothing  but  Elysian 
fields,  bearing  seed  of  themselves,  without  toil  and  labor,  moun- 
tains full  of  solid  gold  and  silver,  and  wells  pouring  forth 
nothing  but  milk  and  honey,  etc.  Who  goes  as  a  servant, 
becomes  a  lord;  who  goes  as  a  maid,  becomes  a  milady; 
a  peasant  becomes  a  nobleman;  a  citizen  and  artisan,  a  baron!" 
Deceived  and  allured  by  such  stories,  Muhlenberg  continues, 
"the  families  break  up,  sell  what  little  they  have,  pay  their 
debts,  turn  over  what  may  be  left  to  the  Newlanders  for  safe- 


52  EARLY  HISTOEY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

keeping,  and  finally  start  on  their  journey.  Already  the  trip 
on  the  Rhine  is  put  to  their  account.  In  Holland  they  are  not 
always  able  to  depart  immediately,  and  frequently  they  get 
a  small  amount  of  money,  advanced  by  the  traders,  on  their 
account.  The  expensive  freight  from  Holland  to  America  is 
added,  also  the  head-money.  Before  they  leave  Holland,  they 
must  sign  a  contract  in  the  English  language.  The  Newlanders 
persuade  and  reassure  the  people  [who,  not  understanding  the 
English,  knew  not  what  they  were  signing]  that  they,  as  im- 
partial friends,  would  see  to  it  that,  in  the  contract,  no  wrong 
was  done  their  countrymen.  The  more  freight  in  persons 
a  merchant  and  captain  can  bring  in  a  ship,  the  more  profitable 
it  is,  provided  that  they  do  not  die  en  route,  for  then  it  may  be 
disadvantageous.  For  this  reason  the  ships  are  kept  clean,  and 
every  means  is  employed  to  deliver  healthy  ware  to  the  market. 
For  a  year  or  so  they  may  not  have  been  as  careful,  suffering 
to  die  what  could  not  live.  When  parents  die  on  the  ships  and 
leave  children,  the  captains  and  the  most  intelligent  of  the 
Newlanders,  acting  as  guardians  and  orphan-fathers,  take  the 
chests  and  inheritance  in  their  safe-keeping,  and  the  orphans, 
arriving  on  the  land,  are  sold  for  their  own  freight  and  the 
freight  of  their  deceased  parents ;  the  real  little  ones  are  given 
away,  and  the  inheritance  of  their  parents  just  about  pays  for 
the  manifold  troubles  caused  to  the  guardians.  This  crying 
deceit  moved  some  well-disposed  German  inhabitants  of  Penn- 
sylvania, especially  in  and  about  Philadelphia,  to  organize 
a  society,  which,  as  much  as  possible,  would  see  to  it  that,  at 
the  arrival  of  the  poor  emigrants,  they  were  dealt  with  accord- 
ing to  justice  and  equity."  When  a  ship  of  emigrants  has 
arrived  in  the  harbor  of  Philadelphia,  Muhlenberg  proceeds, 
"the  newcomers  are  led  in  procession  to  the  court-house,  in 
order  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King  of  Great 
Britain;  then  they  are  led  back  to  the  ship.  Hereupon  the 
papers  announce  that  so  and  so  many  German  people  are  to 
be  sold  for  their  freight.  Whoever  is  able  to  pay  his  own 
freight  receives  his  freedom.  Those  having  wealthy  friends 
endeavor  to  obtain  a  loan  from  them  to  pay  the  freight;  but 
these  are  few.  The  ship  is  the  market.  The  buyers  pick  out 
some  and  bargain  with  them  as  to  the  years  and  days  of  ser- 
vice, whereupon  they  make  them  bind  themselves  before  the 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHEBANISM.  53 

magistrate  by  a  written  instrument  for  a  certain  period  as 
their  property.  The  young,  unmarried  people  of  both  sexes 
sell  first,  their  lot  being  a  good  or  a  bad  one,  for  better  or 
worse,  according  to  the  character  of  the  buyer  and  God's  provi- 
dence or  permission.  We  have  frequently  noted  that  children 
who  were  disobedient  to  their  parents,  and  left  them  stubbornly 
and  against  their  will,  here  found  masters  from  whom  they  re- 
ceived their  reward.  Old  and  married  people,  widows  and  the 
frail,  nobody  wants  to  buy,  because  there  is  here  already  an 
abundance  of  poor  and  useless  people  who  become  a  burden 
to  the  state.  But  if  they  have  healthy  children,  then  the 
freight  of  the  old  people  is  added  to  that  of  the  children,  and 
the  children  must  serve  so  much  longer,  are  sold  so  much 
dearer,  and  scattered  far  and  wide  from  each  other,  among  all 
manner  of  nations,  languages,  and  tongues,  so  that  they  rarely 
see  their  old  parents  or  brothers  and  sisters  again  in  this  life; 
many  also  forget  their  mother-tongue.  In  this  way  the  old 
people  leave  the  ship  free,  but  poor,  naked,  and  weak,  looking 
as  though  they  were  coming  from  the  graves,  and  go  begging 
in  the  city  at  the  doors  of  the  German  inhabitants;  for,  as 
a  rule,  the  English,  afraid  of  infection,  close  the  doors  on  them. 
Such  being  the  conditions,  one's  heart  might  bleed  seeing  and 
hearing  how  these  poor  human  beings,  who  came  from  Chris- 
tian lands  into  the  New  World,  partly  moan,  cry,  lament,  and 
throw  up  their  arms  because  of  the  misery  and  separation 
which  they  had  never  imagined  would  befall  them,  partly  call 
upon  and  adjure  all  elements  and  sacraments,  yea,  all  thunder- 
bolts and  the  terrible  inhabitants  of  hell  to  smash  into  number- 
less fragments  and  torment  the  Newlanders  and  the  Dutch 
merchants,  who  deceived  them!  Those  who  are  far  away  hear 
nothing  of  it,  and  the  properly  so-called  Newlanders  only 
laugh  about  it,  and  give  them  no  other  consolation  beyond 
that  given  to  Judas  Iscariot  by  the  Pharisees,  Matt.  27,  4: 
'What  is  that  to  us?  See  thou  to  that!'  Even  the  children, 
when  they  are  cruelly  kept  and  learn  that  they  must  remain 
in  bondage  all  the  longer  on  account  of  their  parents,  conceive 
a  hatred  and  bitterness  toward  them."    (G.,  474  ff. ) 

36.    Mittelberger    on    Redemptioners.  —  Mittelberger, 
who,  in   1750,  brought  to  America  the   organ  built  at  Heil- 


54  EAELY  HISTOBY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

bronn  for  the  Lutheran  church  in  Philadelphia,  and  served 
Muhlenberg  also  as  schoolteacher  in  Providence,  describes,  in 
substance,  the  sad  lot  of  the  Redemptioners  as  follows: 
"Healthy  and  strong  young  people  were  bound  to  serve  from 
three  to  six  years,  young  people  from  their  tenth  to  their 
twenty-first  year.  Many  parents,  in  order  to  obtain  their  free- 
dom, must  themselves  bargain  about  and  sell  their  own  chil- 
dren like  cattle.  A  wife  must  bear  the  freight  of  her  husband 
if  he  arrives  sick;  in  like  manner  the  husband  is  held  for  his 
sick  wife;  thus  he  must  serve  not  only  for  himself,  but,  in 
addition,  five  or  six  years  for  his  sick  spouse.  When  both  are 
sick,  they  are  brought  into  the  hospital,  but  only  when  no 
buyer  is  found.  As  soon  as  they  are  well,  they  must  serve  in 
payment  of  their  freight,  or  pay,  if  they  have  property.  It 
frequently  happens  that  a  whole  family,  husband,  wife,  and 
children,  being  sold  to  different  buyers,  are  separated,  es- 
pecially if  they  are  unable  to  pay  anything  on  their  freight 
themselves.  When  a  spouse  dies  on  the  ocean  after  one-half 
of  the  voyage  is  completed,  the  remaining  spouse  must  not  only 
pay  or  serve  for  himself,  but  also  for  the  freight  of  the  de- 
ceased one.  When  both  parents  die  on  the  ocean,  their  children 
must  serve  for  their  own  and  their  parents'  freight  till  their 
twenty-first  year.  If  anybody  escapes  a  cruel  master,  he  can- 
not get  very  far,  since  good  provisions  are  made  for  the  certain 
and  speedy  recapture  of  escaped  Redemptioners.  A  liberal  re- 
ward is  paid  to  him  who  holds  or  returns  a  deserter.  If 
a  deserter  was  absent  for  a  day,  he  must  serve  a  week  for  it; 
for  a  week,  a  month;  and  for  a  month,  half  a  year.  Men  of 
rank,  skill,  or  learning,  unable  to  pay  their  freight,  or  to  give 
any  surety,  must  serve  their  masters  by  doing  manual  labor 
like  ordinary  servants.  While  learning  to  perform  the  un- 
accustomed hard  labor,  they  are  treated  with  lashes  like  cattle. 
Many  a  suicide  was  the  consequence  of  the  abominable  deceit 
of  the  Newlanders.  Others  sank  into  utter  despair,  or  deserted, 
only  to  suffer  more  afterwards  than  before.  Sometimes  the 
merchants  in  Holland  make  a  secret  agreement  to  deliver  their 
cargo  of  human  beings  not  in  Philadelphia,  where  they  wanted 
to  go,  but  at  some  other  place,  where  they  expect  a  better 
market,  thus  robbing  many  of  the  assistance  of  their  friends 
and  relatives  in  Pennsylvania.     Many  entrust  their  money  to 


EAELY  HISTOBY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  55 

the  Newlanders,  who  remain  in  Holland,  and  on  their  arrival 
in  this  country  they  must  either  serve  themselves,  or  sell  their 
children  to  serve  for  them."  (477  ff.)  Like  the  negroes,  the 
Redemptioners  could  be  resold.  The  newspapers  carried  ad- 
vertisements like  the  following  from  the  Staatsbote  of  Phila- 
delphia: "The  time  of  service  of  a  bond-maid  is  for  sale.  She 
is  tall  and  strong  enough  to  do  any  kind  of  work,  and  is  able 
to  perform  work  in  the  city  as  well  as  in  the  country.  She  is 
not  sold  on  account  of  a  physical  defect,  but  only  because  her 
master  has  many  women  folks  about.  She  has  yet  to  serve  for 
four  and  a  half  years.  The  name  of  her  owner  may  be  learned 
from  the  publisher  of  this  paper."  (481.)  As  with  the  negro 
slaves  the  lot  of  a  Redemptioner  was  not  in  every  case  physic- 
ally a  sad  and  cruel  one.  In  Maryland  the  laws  protected 
them  by  limiting  the  days  of  work  in  summer  to  five  and  a  half 
a  week,  and  demanding  for  them  three  hours  of  rest  in  the 
middle  of  the  day  during  the  months  of  greatest  heat.  In  1773 
Pastor  Kunze  wrote:  "If  I  should  ever  obtain  20  pounds, 
I  would  buy  the  first  German  student  landing  at  our  coast 
and  owing  freight,  put  him  in  my  upper  room,  begin  a  small 
Latin  school,  teach  during  the  morning  hours  myself,  and  then 
let  my  servant  teach  and  make  my  investment  pay  by  charg- 
ing a  small  fee."  (481.)  Some  of  the  honored  names  in 
American  history  are  those  of  Redemptioners,  among  them 
Charles  Thomson,  the  Secretary  of  Congress  during  the  Revo- 
lution, Matthew  Thornton,  a  signer  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  the  parents  of  Major-General  Sullivan. 
(Jacobs,  235.) 

LUTHERANS  IN  PENNSYLVANIA. 

37.  Roaming  About  without  Altar  and  Ministry.  — 
Justus  Falckner,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  H.  Muhlen,  dated  August  1, 
1701,  describes  the  "spiritual  wilderness"  in  and  about  German- 
town  as  follows :  "As  much,  then,  as  I  was  able  to  observe  the 
conditions  of  the  churches  in  these  parts  and  in  particular  in 
this  province,  they  are  still  pretty  bad.  Because  of  the  lack 
of  any  good  preparations  the  aborigines,  or  Indians,  remain  in 
their  blindness  and  barbarism.  In  addition  to  this  they  are 
scandalized  by  the  wicked  life  of  the  Christians,  and  especially 
by  the  trade  carried  on  with  them,  and  merely  acquire  vices 


56  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

which  were  unknown  to  them  before,  such  as  drunkenness, 
theft,  etc.  The  few  Christians  here  are  divided  in  almost  in- 
numerable sects,  which  xax'*  s^ox^v  may  be  called  sects  and 
rabbles,  such  as  Quakers,  Anabaptists,  Naturalists,  Libertinists, 
Independentists,  Sabbatarians,  and  many  others,  especially  se- 
cretly spreading  sects,  regarding  whom  we  are  at  a  loss  what 
to  make  of  them.  However,  all  of  them  agree  in  their  beautiful 
principles  (si  Dis  placet)  :  Abolish  all  good  order,  and  live  for 
yourself  as  you  see  fit.  The  Quakers  are  the  most  numerous 
because  the  Governor  [William  Penn]  belongs  to  them,  so  that 
one  might  call  this  land  an  anatomical  laboratory  of  Quakers. 
For  much  as  our  theologians  have  labored  to  dissect  this 
cadaver  and  discover  its  entrails,  they,  nevertheless,  have  not 
been  able  to  do  it  as  well  as  the  Quakers  are  now  doing  it 
themselves  in  this  country.  It  would  fill  a  whole  tract  if,  as 
could  be  done  easily,  I  were  to  describe  how  they,  by  trans- 
gressing their  own  principles,  make  it  apparent  what  kind  of 
a  spirit  is  moving  them,  while  they,  by  virtue  of  the  foun- 
dation of  such  principles,  are  scoffers  and  Ishmaels  of  all  well- 
ordered  church-life.  Hie  Rhodus,  hie  saltant  (Here  is  Rhodes, 
here  they  dance)."  "Also  here"  (as  in  Europe),  Falckner  pro- 
ceeds, "the  Protestant  Church  is  divided  in  three  nations;  for 
there  is  here  an  English  Protestant  Church,  a  Swedish  Protes- 
tant Lutheran  Church,  and  people  of  the  German  nation  be- 
longing to  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed 
Churches.  The  Swedes  have  two  congregations.  .  .  .  But  not 
without  reason  have  I  spoken  of  the  Germans  merely  as  some 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Germans  and  not  the  German  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church,  inasmuch  as  they  are  roaming  about  in  this 
desert  without  altar  and  the  ministry  (scilicet  qui  ara  sacer- 
dotuque  destituti  vagantur  hoc  in  deserto),  a  miserable  con- 
dition, indeed.  Otherwise  there  is  a  great  number  of  Germans 
here.  But  a  part  of  them  have  joined  the  other  sects,  who  use 
the  English  language,  which  is  learned  first  by  all  who  come 
here,  and  some  of  them  are  Quakers  and  Anabaptists.  Another 
part  of  them  are  freethinkers,  uniting  with  nobody  and  letting 
their  children  grow  up  in  the  same  way.  In  brief,  there  are 
Germans  here,  and  probably  the  most  of  them,  who  despise 
God's  Word  and  all  good  outward  order,  blaspheme  and  fright- 
fully and  publicly  desecrate  the  Sacraments.     Spiritus  enim 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  57 

erronim  et  sectarum  asylum  sibi  hie  constituit  (For  the  spirit 
of  errors  and  sects  has  here  established  his  asylum ) .  And  the 
chief  fault  and  cause  of  this  is  the  lack  of  provision  for  an  ex- 
ternal visible  church-communion.  For  since,  as  it  were,  the 
first  thesis  of  natural  theology,  inborn  in  all  men,  is  'Religio- 
sum  quendam  cultum  observandum,  A  certain  religious  cult 
must  be  observed,'  it  happens  that  these  people,  when  they 
come  here  and  find  no  better  external  service,  elect  any  one 
rather  than  none.  For  though  they  are  Libertinists,  never- 
theless also  Libertinism  is  not  without  its  outward  form,  by 
which  it  makes  itself  a  specific  religion  in  none  of  them." 
Falckner  proceeds:  "I  and  my  brother  [Daniel]  attend  the 
Swedish  church,  although,  as  yet,  we  understand  little  of  the 
language.  And  by  our  example  we  have  induced  several  Ger- 
mans to  come  to  their  meetings  occasionally,  even  though  they 
did  not  understand  the  language,  and  for  the  purpose  only  of 
gradually  drawing  them  out  of  barbarism  and  accustoming 
them  to  outward  order,  especially  as  one  of  the  Swedish  pastors, 
Mr.  M.  Rudman,  for  the  sake  of  love  and  the  glory  of  God, 
offered  to  go  to  the  trouble  of  learning  the  German  language 
and  occasionally  to  deliver  a  German  address  in  the  Swedish 
church,  until  the  Germans  could  have  a  church  of  their  own/' 
In  the  following  Falckner  dwells  on  the  great  help  it  would 
afford  in  attracting  the  Indians  and  the  children  of  the  Quakers 
and  drawing  the  young  Swedes  to  the  services  if  an  organ 
could  be  installed  in  the  Swedish  church.  (G.  Fritschel,  Ge- 
schichte,  35  ff. )  The  miserable  condition  spiritually  of  the  Lu- 
therans in  Pennsylvania  appears  from  a  letter  of  their  repre- 
sentatives to  Dr.  Ziegenhagen  in  London,  dated  October,  1739, 
in  which  they  state:  "There  is  not  one  German  Lutheran 
preacher  in  the  whole  land,  except  Caspar  Stoever,  now  sixty 
miles  distant  from  Philadelphia."   (Jacobs,  191.) 

38.  New  Hanover,  Philadelphia,  Providence.  —  It  was 
a  motley  crowd  of  Germans  that  gathered  in  the  land  of  the 
Quakers.  Indeed,  Pastorius,  the  first  mayor  of  Germantown, 
was  a  rather  moderate  pietist  from  the  circles  of  Spener,  but, 
as  stated  above,  with  him  and  after  him  came  Mennonites, 
Tunkers,  Moravians,  Gichtelians,  Schwenkfeldians,  disciples  of 
the  cobbler  of  Goerlitz,  Jacob  Boehme,  and  enthusiasts  who  as 


58  EAELY  HISTOBY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHEBANISM. 

yet  had  no  name.  (G.,  242.)  Before  long,  however,  the  Lu- 
therans outnumbered  all  other  German  denominations  (Mora- 
vians and  German  Reformed)  and  sects  in  the  Quaker  State, 
to  which  they  came  in  increasingly  large  numbers,  especially 
after  the  sad  experiences  of  the  Palatinates  in  New  York.  By 
1750  the  number  of  Germans  in  Pennsylvania  was  estimated  at 
60,000,  of  whom  about  two-thirds  were  Lutherans  by  birth. 
Though  imbued  with  apocalyptical  and  mystical  ideas,  H.  B. 
Koester,  who  arrived  in  1694  with  forty  families,  is  said  to 
have  conducted  the  first  German  Lutheran  services  in  German- 
town.  Before  long  he  united  with  the  Episcopalians  and 
founded  Christ  Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia,  but  returned 
to  Germany  in  1700.  Daniel  Falckner,  who  had  emigrated  with 
Koester,  opposed  the  Quakers  in  Germantown.  In  Falckner's 
Swamp  (New  Hanover),  he  organized  the  first  German  Lu- 
theran congregation  in  Pennsylvania,  and  is  said  to  have 
erected  a  log  church  as  early  as  1704.  In  his  struggle  against 
the  mismanagement  of  Pastorius,  Falckner,  in  1708,  fell  a  prey 
to  intrigues.  A  disappointed  man  he  went  to  New  Jersey,  where 
he  served  the  congregations  at  Raritan,  Muehlstein,  Rockaway, 
and  other  points,  and  from  1724  to  1725  also  the  settlements 
which  Kocherthal  had  served  along  the  Hudson.  Owing  to  his 
increasing  mental  weakness,  Daniel  Falckner,  in  1731,  resigned 
his  field  in  favor  of  J.  A.  Wolff.  He  died  at  Raritan  ten  years 
later.  In  New  Hanover  Gerhard  Henkel,  the  first  Lutheran 
pastor  in  Virginia,  continued  the  work  from  1717  to  1728.  In 
Philadelphia  J.  C.  Schulz,  of  Wuerttemberg,  was  the  first  Lu- 
theran pastor  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge.  Educated  in 
Strassburg,  Schulz  arrived  in  Philadelphia  on  September  25, 
1732.  He  also  served  New  Hanover  and  New  Providence.  At 
the  latter  place  the  first  entries  in  the  parish  register  date 
back  to  1729,  and  the  congregation  numbered  about  one 
hundred  communicant  members  when  Muhlenberg  took  charge. 
In  1732  Pastor  Schulz,  accompanied  by  two  lay  delegates,  left 
for  Europe  to  collect  money,  and,  above  all,  to  secure  laborers 
from  Halle,  for  the  mission-work  in  Pennsylvania.  These 
efforts  terminated  when  Schulz  was  arrested  in  Germany  for 
disorderly  conduct.  Before  leaving  Pennsylvania,  Schulz  had 
ordained  John  Caspar  Stoever,  a  relative  of  Pastor  J.  C. 
Stoever,  Sr.,  in  Spottsylvania,  Va.,  and  placed  him  in  charge 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  59 

of  his  congregations.  Stoever,  Jr.,  had  studied  theology  in 
Germany,  and  after  his  arrival  in  America,  1728,  had  been 
active  in  mission-work  among  the  Lutherans  in  Pennsylvania, 
a  labor  which  he  zealously  continued  till  his  sudden  death  in 
1779,  while  confirming  a  class  at  Lebanon.  Stoever's  aversion 
to  Pietism  at  first  kept  him  from  uniting  with  Muhlenberg. 
It  was  1763,  fifteen  years  after  its  organization,  before  he  be- 
came a  member  of  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium.  Concerning 
Stoever  and  the  Agenda  of  1748,  Muhlenberg  relates  the  fol- 
lowing: "We  were  minded  to  employ  the  very  words  of  our 
Lord  Jesus:  Take  and  eat;  this  is  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ,  etc.  Take  and  drink,  this  cup  is  the  New  Testament 
in  the  blood  of  Christ,  etc.  At  the  baptism  of  children  it  was 
our  intention  to  ask  the  sponsors,  or  godparents:  Do  you  re- 
nounce in  the  name  of  this  child,  etc.?  To  this  the  opponents 
[Stoever,  Wagner,  and  their  adherents]  objected  strenuously 
before  we  had  finished.  We  therefore  made  a  change  imme- 
diately and  used  the  words  which  their  terrified  consciences 
desired,  viz. :  This  is  the  true  body,  etc.;  this  is  the  true 
blood,  etc.,  and  in  the  formula  of  baptism:  Peter,  Paul,  or 
Maria,  dost  thou  renounce,  etc.?"  Graebner  comments  as  fol- 
lows: "If  the  Wagners  and  Stoevers  [whom  Muhlenberg 
severely  censured  in  1748]  had  committed  no  other  crimes  but 
that  of  compelling  the  'united  preachers'  [from  Halle]  to  take 
a  decided  Lutheran  position,  one  might  wish  that  their  influence 
had  extended  still  farther."  In  the  following  year,  1749,  how- 
ever, the  Pennsylvania  Synod  changed  the  formula  of  baptism 
so  that  the  sponsors  were  asked,  "Do  you  renounce  (believe)  in 
the  name  of  this  child,  etc.?"    (Graebner,  327.) 

HENRY  MELCHIOR  MUHLEJSTBERG. 

39.  Self-sacrificing-  Halle  Emissaries.  —  The  help  which 
Pastor  Schulz  and  his  laymen  had  requested  from  Halle  in  1734 
arrived  nine  years  later.  Francke's  hesitation  with  regard  to 
questions  of  salary,  etc.,  drew  the  matter  out  until  Muhlenberg 
declared  himself  willing  to  accept  the  call  to  America  without 
further  conditions.  He  was  the  instrument  whereby  it  pleased 
God  to  preserve  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  from  complete 
deterioration  and  disintegration  and  from  the  imminent  danger 


60  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

of  apostasy  through  Zinzendorf.  Muhlenberg  (Muehlenberg) 
was  born  at  Eimbeck,  Hannover,  September  6,  1711.  In  1738 
he  graduated  from  Goettingen.  He  spent  one  year  teaching  in 
the  Orphan  Home  at  Halle,  and  served  a  congregation  in  Upper 
Lusatia  from  1739  to  1741.  In  1741  he  also  published  his  only 
work,  a  defense  of  Pietism  against  B.  Mentzer.  In  the  same 
year  he  accepted  the  call  to  the  congregations  in  Pennsylvania: 
Philadelphia,  Providence,  and  New  Hanover.  September  23, 
1742,  he  landed  at  Charleston,  visited  Bolzius  and  the  Salz- 
burgers  in  Ebenezer,  and  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  November  25, 
1742.  From  the  very  beginning  Muhlenberg  was  successful  in 
his  opposition  to  Zinzendorf,  who  had  come  to  America  in  1741 
to  convert  the  Indians  and  to  merge  the  pious  of  all  churches 
in  the  Unitas  Fratrum.  Pretending  to  be  a  Lutheran,  he  had 
wormed  his  way  into  the  Lutheran  congregation  at  Phila- 
delphia, assuming  the  title  and  functions  of  Inspector-General 
of  all  the  Lutheran  churches  in  America.  However,  unmasked 
by  Muhlenberg,  he  now,  January,  1743,  returned  to  Germany 
in  disgrace.  In  spite  of  many  other  difficulties,  Muhlenberg 
rapidly  won  recognition  from  all  the  congregations.  In  1745 
he  dedicated  his  first  church  in  Philadelphia.  The  Hallesche 
Nachrichten  contain  vivid  pictures,  from  the  pens  of  Muhlen- 
berg and  his  assistants,  of  their  untiring,  self-sacrificing, 
blessed,  and  constantly  increasing  missionary  activity,  which 
at  the  same  time  served  the  purpose  of  encouraging  Halle  to 
send  additional  laborers.  The  close  of  January,  1745,  saw  the 
arrival  of  Peter  Brunnholtz  (who  took  charge  of  Philadelphia 
and  Germantown)  and  of  the  two  catechists  Nicholaus  Kurtz 
and  J.  H.  Schaum,  who  at  first  served  as  assistants  and  were 
later  on  ordained  as  pastors.  Muhlenberg  wrote  to  Halle: 
"To  be  brief:  the  church  which  must  be  planted  here  is  at 
a  very  critical  juncture  (Hier  ist  ecclesia  plantanda  in  einer 
recht  kritischen  junctura ) .  Hence  we  ought  to  have  experi- 
enced and  strong  men,  able  to  stand  in  the  breach  and  to  dare 
with  patience  and  self-denial.  You,  highly  venerable  fathers, 
know  full  well  that  I  am  not  the  man.  But  I  regard  my  dear 
colleague  Brunnholtz  as  such  a  man,  and  wish  that  he  had  two 
or  three  colaborers  like  himself;  that  would  help  us.  God 
would  easily  direct  me  to  some  smaller  corner."  (290.)  In 
1743  Muhlenberg  sent  Tobias  Wagner  to  the  Palatines  in  Tulpe- 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  61 

hocken  Creek,  where  Gerhard  Henkel  had  already  preached,  and 
where,  in  1745,  Wagner  solemnized  the  marriage  of  Muhlen- 
berg and  the  daughter  of  J.  C.  Weiser.  Services  were  con- 
ducted at  this  time  also  in  Ohly,  Cohenzi,  Indianfield,  Chester, 
and  Reading  (where  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  had 
erected  a  church  together).  In  1745  Muhlenberg  conducted 
a  visitation  at  Raritan,  induced  Wolff  to  resign,  sent  them 
Kurtz  and  1747  Schaum  as  temporary  supply-pastors,  and 
finally,  in  1748,  induced  the  congregation  to  call  J.  A.  Weygand. 
Following  the  track  of  the  Moravian  Nyberg,  who  created  con- 
fusion wherever  he  went,  Muhlenberg  secured  a  foothold  also 
at  Lancaster  in  1746,  at  York,  and  Conewago,  in  1747,  as  well 
as  in  Monocacy  and  Frederick,  Md.  J.  F.  Handschuh  (Hand- 
schuch),  who  arrived  from  Halle  in  1748,  was  put  in  charge  of 
Lancaster.  L.  H.  Schrenck  and  L.  Raus  arrived  in  1749.  The 
former  was  stationed  in  Upper  Milford  and  Saccum,  the  latter 
was  appointed  vicar  in  Rheinbeck  and  Camp.  F.  Schultz  and 
Heintzelmann  came  in  1751.  The  latter  received  an  appoint- 
ment in  Philadelphia  and  married  Muhlenberg's  daughter. 
Baugher  (Bager)  arrived  in  1752,  and  Gerock  the  year  follow- 
ing. —  Pastors  and  congregations  were  imbued  with  one  and 
the  same  spirit,  and  considered  themselves  parts  of  one  and  the 
same  church,  consisting  of  the  "Collegium  Pastorum"  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  "United  Congregations"  on  the  other. 

40.  Org-anizing  Pennsylvania  Synod.  —  To  stablish  the 
congregations,  Muhlenberg,  with  five  pastors  and  ten  congre- 
gations, on  August  26,  1748,  organized  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
then  generally  called  "The  United  Congregations"  or  "The 
United  Pastors."  This  event  has  been  designated  by  Dr.  Graeb- 
ner  "the  most  important  in  the  history  of  the  American  Lu- 
theran Church  of  the  eighteenth  century."  From  the  very  be- 
ginning Muhlenberg's  three  original  congregations  were  called 
"The  United  Congregations."  This  name  was  extended  also  to 
the  congregations  subsequently  organized  or  served  by  Muhlen- 
berg and  his  colaborers  at  Germantown,  Lancaster,  Tulpehocken, 
York,  etc.  And  pastors  and  congregations  being  imbued,  as 
they  were,  with  one  and  the  same  spirit,  and  considering  them- 
selves parts  of  one  and  the  same  church,  consisting  of  "The 
College  of  Pastors  ( Collegium  Pastorum ) "  on  the  one  hand  and 


62  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

"The  United  Congregations"  on  the  other,  it  was  but  natural 
that  they  should  unite  in  a  regular  synod  with  regular  meet- 
ings. The  year  1748  was  most  opportune  and  suggestive  for 
such  an  organization.  Pastor  Hartwick  of  Rhinebeck  had 
come  to  Philadelphia.  Nicholas  Kurtz  had  arrived  in  order 
to  be  ordained  as  pastor  for  the  congregation  at  Tulpe- 
hocken.  The  dedication  of  St.  Michael's  Church  in  Phila- 
delphia brought  other  representative  Lutherans  to  the  city. 
The  Swedes  were  represented  by  Provost  Sandin  and  Peter 
Kock  (Koch),  a  trustee  of  Gloria  Dei  Church,  who  zealously 
advocated  synodical  connection  between  the  Germans  and 
Swedes.  Before  the  public  services,  Pastors  Brunnholtz,  Hand- 
schuh,  and  Hartwick  met  to  examine  Kurtz.  His  answers  were 
approved  of  in  Halle  as  creditable  even  to  candidates  in  Ger- 
many. On  the  following  day,  Sunday,  St.  Michael's  was  dedi- 
cated. Provost  Sandin  headed  the  procession  from  Brunnholtz's 
parsonage  to  the  new  church.  "Come,  Holy  Spirit,  God  and 
Lord,"  was  sung.  A  letter  from  the  Swedish  pastor  Tranberg, 
regretting  his  absence  and  congratulating  the  congregation  in 
English,  was  then  read.  The  address  emphasized  that  "the 
foundation  of  this  church  was  laid  with  the  intention  that  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  doctrine  should  be  taught  therein  accord- 
ing to  the  foundation  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  other 
symbolical  books."  After  singing  another  hymn,  six  prayers 
were  offered,  two  in  Swedish  by  the  Swedish  pastors,  and  four 
in  German  by  Brunnholtz,  Hartwick,  Handschuh,  and  Mr.  Kock. 
After  another  hymn  a  child  was  baptized,  and  a  sermon 
preached  by  Handschuh.  Hereupon  the  ministers,  with  a  few 
of  the  congregation,  received  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  the  after- 
noon Hartwick  preached  the  ordination  sermon.  Then,  the  lay 
delegates  standing  in  a  semicircle  about  the  altar,  Provost 
Sandin  and  the  four  German  pastors  ordained  Kurtz.  Muhlen- 
berg read  the  liturgical  formula.  On  Monday,  August  26 
(15  Old  Style),  1748,  the  first  session  of  Synod  was  held, 
N.  Kurtz,  the  newly  ordained  pastor,  delivering  the  opening 
sermon. 

41.  First  Session  of  Synod. — According  to  the  minutes, 
written  by  Brunnholtz  and  signed  by  the  four  German  pastors 


EARLY  HISTOEY  OF  AMEBICAN  LUTHEBANISM.  63 

residing  in  Pennsylvania  and  a  number  of.  lay  delegates,  the 
synod  consisted  of  six  ministers  (including  Sandin  and  Hart- 
wick)  and  twenty-four  delegates,  exclusive  of  the  church  council 
of  the  Philadelphia  congregation:  four  lay  delegates  from 
Germantown,  three  from  Providence,  three  from  New  Hanover, 
two  from  Upper  Milford,  one  from  Saccum,  three  from  Tulpe- 
hocken,  one  from  Nordkiel,  six  from  Lancaster,  and  one  from 
Earlingtown.  Peter  Kock  represented  the  Swedish  laity.  The 
congregation  at  York,  in  a  letter,  regretted  the  absence  of 
representatives.  The  organization  proceeded  without  the  adop- 
tion of  any  formulated  constitution.  Though  not  formally 
elected,  Muhlenberg,  by  virtue  of  his  first  call  and  commission 
by  the  authorities  in  Halle,  was  president  of  the  synod.  When, 
at  the  second  meeting  of  the  synod,  in  1749,  Brunnholtz,  on 
motion  of  Muhlenberg,  was  elected  overseer  of  all  the  United 
Congregations,  this  was  ignored  by  the  authorities  in  Halle, 
and,  Brunnholtz's  health  failing,  the  office  was  soon  transferred 
to  Muhlenberg,  who  exercised  it  for  many  years.  At  the  first 
meeting,  after  the  hymn,  "Du  suesse  Lieb',  schenk'  uns  deine 
Gunst,"  was  sung,  Muhlenberg  addressed  the  assembly,  saying, 
in  part:  This  union  was  desired  for  a  long  time.  The  effort 
made  five  years  ago  in  the  Swedish  church  was  frustrated  by 
Nyberg.  Unity  among  us  is  necessary.  Every  member  in  the 
congregation  has  children.  In  their  interest  elders  are  re- 
quired to  assist  in  making  a  good  church  order.  For  this 
purpose  we  are  here  assembled,  and,  God  willing,  shall  meet 
annually.  "We  preachers,  here  present,"  Muhlenberg  empha- 
sized, "have  not  run  of  ourselves,  but  have  been  called  here  and 
urged  to  go.  We  are  bound  to  render  account  to  God  and  to 
our  consciences.  We  maintain  connection  with  our  fathers  in 
Europe.  We  must  not  only  care  for  ourselves,  but  also  for 
our  descendants."  In  part,  Muhlenberg's  remarks  reflected  on 
Stoever,  Streit  (Streiter,  as  he  is  called  in  the  minutes), 
Andreae,  and  Wagner.  These  ministers  had  not  been  invited 
to  participate  in  the  organization  of  the  synod,  because,  as 
a  declaration  put  on  record  by  synod  explains,  "1.  they, 
without  reason,  decry  us  [Muhlenberg  and  his  adherents]  as 
Pietists;  2.  are  not  sent  and  have  neither  an  internal  nor  an 
external  call;  3.  are  unwilling  to  observe  a  uniform  order  of 
service  with  us,  each  following  the  ceremonies  of  his  country; 


64  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHEBANISM. 

4.  an  experience  of  six  years  had  taught  Muhlenberg  that  their 
object  was  nothing  but  bread;  5.  they  were  subject  to  no  con- 
sistory and  gave  no  account  of  the  exercise  of  their  office." 
The  lay  delegates  were  called  upon  to  give  a  report  concerning 
the  efficiency  of  their  pastors,  and  their  opinion  concerning  the 
new  liturgy,  which  they  regarded  as  too  long.  Also  the  condi- 
tion of  the  parochial  schools  was  inquired  into.  The  conference 
with  the  laymen  was  adjourned  Monday  afternoon,  after  which 
they  dined  together.  The  pastors  then  attended  to  business 
generally  regarded  as  belonging  to  them.  Hartwick  addressed 
the  elders,  wishing  their  congregations  every  blessing.  The 
Swedish  provost  expressed  his  desire  to  be  a  member  of  the 
body.  But  Peter  Kock  having  died,  no  Swede  attended  the 
meeting  in  the  following  year.  Seven  annual  meetings  were 
held  by  the  United  Congregations,  the  last  at  New  Hanover  in 
1754.  Revived  by  Dr.  Wrangel  and  Muhlenberg  in  1760,  this 
oldest  Lutheran  synod  in  America  exists  to  the  present  day 
as  "The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania." 
(Graebner,  301  ff.) 

FURTHER  ACTIVITY  AND  DEATH  OF  MUHLENBERG. 

42.  Discouraging  Conditions.  —  The  joyous  events  of 
1748  in  Philadelphia  were  followed  by  disappointments  to 
such  an  extent  that  after  1754  the  synodical  meetings  were 
abandoned  till  1760,  when,  as  stated,  Provost  Von  Wrangel 
revived  the  synod  in  the  interest  of  establishing  a  German- 
Swedish  organization.  The  failure  was  caused  by  various  dis- 
couragements: the  deaths  of  Heintzelman  and  Brunnholtz; 
the  troubles  in  the  congregations  of  Handschuh  at  Lancaster, 
Germantown,  and  Philadelphia;  the  opposition  of  Stoever  and 
other  anti-Pietists,  whom  the  synod  in  1748  marked  as  un- 
desirables; charges  against  Muhlenberg  and  his  colaborers, 
that  they  were  but  secret  agents  of  Zinzendorf ,  etc. ;  and  above 
all  the  entirely  insufficient  support  in  men  and  moneys  from 
Halle.  The  difficulties  and  discouraging  conditions  under  which 
Muhlenberg  and  his  assistants  were  laboring,  appear  from  the 
urgent  appeal,  signed  by  Muhlenberg,  Brunnholtz,  and  Hand- 
schuh, adopted  by  the  synod  in  1754,  and  sent  to  both  London 
and  Halle.  Dr.  Jacobs  writes :  "It  is  one  of  the  most  important 
papers  in  the  Halle  'Reports.'    The  entire  field  is  surveyed,  the 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  65 

history  of  German  immigration  traced,  and  the  religious  con- 
dition of  the  immigrants  described.  The  manner  in  which  other 
denominations  and  the  Swedish  Lutherans  are  aided  by  foreign 
help  is  shown,  and  a  very  discouraging  contrast  is  drawn.  The 
condition  of  each  parish  is  then  candidly  and  at  length  set 
forth.  Three  great  dangers  they  see  threatening  the  inner  life 
of  congregations,  viz.:  the  assumption,  by  the  leading  men  of 
particular  parishes,  of  the  right  to  dictate,  as  a  compensation 
for  the  perhaps  greater  amount  expected  of  them  for  the 
pastor's  support;  the  lawlessness  of  immigrants  who  abuse 
the  freedom  of  the  country,  want  to  break  through  all  rules, 
and  revile  all  good  order,  the  regular  ministry,  and  divine 
service  as  papacy  itself;  the  introduction  of  worthless  men 
into  the  country  as  pretended  ministers  by  the  Newlanders, 
who  sell  their  services  from  the  ship  to  Lutherans  willing  to 
be  deceived  in  this  way.  The  United  Pastors,  they  urge,  are 
almost  powerless  to  resist.  The  people  are,  as  a  rule,  poor. 
In  a  congregation  of  three  hundred  members  scarcely  fifteen 
can  be  found  able  to  contribute  toward  the  building  of 
churches;  and  the  responsibility  for  debts  incurred  must, 
therefore,  as  a  rule,  fall  upon  the  pastors  themselves.  Many 
thousands  of  Lutheran  people  are  scattered  throughout  North 
Carolina,  Virginia,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  etc.  No 
provision  is  made  for  the  traveling  expenses  of  the  pastors  or 
supplies  for  their  places,  if  these  Lutherans  are  cared  for. 
People  come  often  one  and  even  two  hundred  miles  to  hear 
a  sermon  and  receive  the  Sacrament,  and  weep  bitterly  over 
the  destitution,  which  no  one  endeavors  to  remove.  They  [the 
signers  of  the  appeal]  contrast  the  condition  of  a  pastor  in  the 
New  with  that  of  one  in  the  Old  World.  The  latter  has  the 
assurance  of  necessary  support,  of  protection  in  his  office,  of 
all  needed  buildings,  of  provision  for  the  proper  instruction 
of  his  people.  The  former  has  none  of  these.  Among  ten 
families  there  is  scarcely  one  or  two  that  contribute  according 
to  their  promises.  The  sects  diffuse  among  the  people  the 
ideas,  to  which  they  lend  too  ready  assent,  that  the  pastors 
as  well  as  their  hearers  ought  to  work  at  a  trade,  cut  wood, 
sow  and  reap  during  the  week,  and  then  preach  to  them  gratui- 
tously on  Sunday.     They  hear  such  things  wherever  they  go  — 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  5 


66  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

in  papers,  in  company,  on  their  journeys,  and  at  the  taverns. 
The  picture  is  a  very  dark  one.  The  pastors  feel  that  they  do 
not  see  how  it  is  possible  for  them  to  advance;  and  yet  to 
recede  or  even  to  be  stationary  must  be  fatal."  Jacobs  con- 
tinues: "Such  representations  probably  had  something  to  do 
with  the  impression  current  for  a  while  at  Halle  that  Muhlen- 
berg was  visionary  and  eccentric,  so  strange  do  his  statements 
seem  to  those  incompetent  from  personal  observation  to  appre- 
ciate the  urgency  of  the  situation  in  Pennsylvania.  If  there 
was  any  time  when,  even  for  a  moment,  Muhlenberg  entertained 
the  suggestion  of  transferring  the  care  of  the  Lutherans  of 
Pennsylvania  to  the  Church  of  England,  it  was  only  at  some 
such  time  when  he  and  his  associates  in  the  synod  were  allowed 
to  struggle  on  under  such  burdens  almost  unaided,  while  union 
with  the  Church  of  England  would  at  once  have  provided  all 
missionaries  sent  thither  with  an  appropriation  almost  suf- 
ficient for  support,  and  with  far  better  protection  against  the 
prevalent  disorder.  If  the  Lutherans  in  Europe  could  not  meet 
the  demands  of  the  hour,  we  can  pardon  the  thought,  which 
never  became  a  fixed  purpose,  that,  sooner  than  have  the 
thousands  for  whose  care  he  felt  himself  responsible  neglected, 
some  other  mode  of  relief  would  have  to  be  sought."   ( 246  ff. ) 

43.  Further  Activity  and  Death.  —  In  May,  1751,  as  re- 
lated above,  Muhlenberg  became  pastor  of  the  Dutch  congre- 
gation in  New  York.  From  1753  to  1761  he  once  more  labored 
in  New  Hanover  and  Providence.  During  this  period  he  made 
visits  to  Raritan  ( 1757,  1758  for  nine  weeks,  1759  with  his 
family,  again  in  October,  1759,  and  in  January,  1760),  his 
assistant  J.  H.  Schaum  in  the  mean  time  representing  him  in 
Providence.  October  29,  1761  Muhlenberg  returned  to  Phila- 
delphia to  allay  the  strife  which  had  broken  out.  Here  he 
lived  in  his  own  home,  and  maintained  an  intimate  intercourse 
with  Dr.  Wrangel.  By  the  new  congregational  constitution, 
which  his  congregation  subscribed  to  in  1762,  and  which,  in 
the  course  of  time,  was  adopted  by  nearly  all  the  congregations 
in  Pennsylvania,  Muhlenberg's  influence  was  extended  far  and 
wide.  In  1769  he  dedicated  the  new  Zion  Church  at  Phila- 
delphia. (The  national  memorial  services  of  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin [1790],   of  Washington  [1799],  and   of  Abraham   Lincoln 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  67 

[1865]  were  held  in  this  church.)  September  8,  1774,  he  ar- 
rived in  Charleston,  accompanied  by  his  wife  and  daughter, 
where  the  congregation  had  requested  him  to  settle  their 
quarrel,  which  he  did  with  skill  and  success.  His  real  goal, 
however,  was  Ebenezer,  where  he,  by  order  of  the  authorities 
in  Europe,  was  to  conduct  a  visitation  and  to  repair  the  harm 
done  by  Triebner.  Here  he  drafted  a  new  constitution,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  Salzburgers  and  resulted  in  a  temporary 
peace.  On  February  6,  1775,  he  began  his  journey  back  to 
Pennsylvania.  When  the  vestry  of  his  congregation  at  Phila- 
delphia in  1779,  without  further  ado,  elected  Kunze  to  be  his 
successor^  Muhlenberg  conducted  himself  with  dignity.  The 
congregation  rescinded  her  action,  whereupon  Muhlenberg  re- 
signed, and  was  given  a  pension  of  £100  annually  and  granted 
permission  to  preach  occasionally  in  the  church.  As  early  as 
1748  Muhlenberg  had  compiled  an  Agenda,  which  at  first  was 
circulated  in  manuscript,  and  was  printed  in  1786  in  a  some- 
what modified  form.  The  only  objection  which,  in  1748,  the 
congregations  raised  to  the  Agenda  was  that  "public  worship 
would  last  too  long,  especially  in  the  cold  winter  months"; 
wherefore  "they  requested  that  it  be  abbreviated."  In  1782 
Muhlenberg  also  did  the  chief  work  in  preparing  the  hymnal, 
which  was  printed  in  1784.  In  the  same  year  Pennsylvania 
Academy  conferred  upon  him  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity. 
Muhlenberg  accepted  the  title,  but  requested  his  friends  not  to 
make  any  use  of  it  in  their  intercourse  with  him.  Muhlenberg 
died  October  7,  1787.  Taking  leave  of  his  friend  for  this  life, 
he  spoke  of  the  journey  ahead  to  his  true  fatherland,  repeating 
the  words  of  the  hymn:  "Ich  hab'  vor  mir  em'  schwere  Reis' 
Zu  dir  in's  Himmels  Paradeis,  Das  ist  mein  rechtes  Vaterland, 
Darauf  du  hast  dein  Blut  gewandt."  Shortly  before  his  death 
he  prayed  the  stanza:  "Mach'  End',  o  Herr,  mach'  Ende  An 
aller  unsrer  Not,  Staerk'  unsre  Fuess'  und  Haende  Und  lass 
bis  in  den  Tod  Uns  allzeit  deiner  Pflege  Und  Treu'  empfohlen 
sein,  So  gehen  unsre  Wege  Gewiss  zum  Himmel  ein."  Muhlen- 
berg's funeral  was  attended  by  eight  Lutheran  pastors,  the 
Reformed  minister  Schlatter,  and  a  great  concourse  of  people, 
so  that  Pastor  J.  L.  Voigt  was  compelled  to  deliver  his  oration 
in  the  open.  Memorial  services  were  conducted  in  New  York 
and  in  many  other  places,  as  well  as  in  almost  all  congrega- 


68  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

tions  belonging  to  the  synod.  In  Muhlenberg  the  greatest  man 
whom  God  had  given  to  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  "the  patriarch  of  the  American  Lu- 
theran Church,"  had  passed  away.  His  body  was  interred  just 
outside  the  walls  of  the  church  in  Trappe.  A  marble  slab  over 
his  grave  bears  the  inscription:  "Qualis  et  quantus  fuerit, 
Non  ignorabunt  sine  lapide  Futura  Saecula.  (Future  ages 
will  know  his  character  and  importance  without  a  stone.)" 
(484.  521.) 

44.  Tributes  to,  and  Estimates  of,  Muhlenberg.  —  In 
his  letter  to  Dr.  Freylinghausen  in  Halle,  Muhlenberg  himself 
reveals  the  pious  and  humble  frame  of  his  mind  as  follows: 
"To-day,  December  6,  1762,  it  is  forty  years  since  I  set  foot  in 
Philadelphia  for  the  first  time;  and  I  believe  that  my  end  is 
no  longer  removed  very  far.  Had  I  during  these  forty  years 
served  my  Lord  as  faithfully  as  Jeremiah,  I  could  look  for- 
ward to  a  more  joyful  end.  But  I  must  now  account  it  grace 
and  mercy  unparalleled  if  the  gracious  Redeemer,  for  the  sake 
of  His  all-sufficient  merits,  will  not  regard  my  mistakes  and 
weaknesses,  but  receive  me  graciously."  Speaking  of  Muhlen- 
berg's faithfulness,  Dr.  E.  A.  W.  Krauss  remarks :  "Muhlenberg 
continued  faithful  in  things  both  small  and  great,  even  after 
he  had  received  assistance  from  Germany,  and  one  coworker 
after  another  began  to  labor  at  his  side.  Before  long  his  ac- 
tivity had  exceeded  the  sphere  of  his  three  congregations.  On 
request  he  visited  the  scattered  Lutherans  in  Germantown, 
Tulpehocken,  Lancaster,  York,  Raritan,  Frederick.  He  was  the 
counselor  of  poorly  served  congregations,  the  judge  in  their 
quarrels.  Confidence  was  everywhere  reposed  in  him.  By 
reason  of  his  talent  for  organizing,  his  erudition,  but,  above 
all,  his  unselfishness,  his  modesty,  dignity,  and  piety,  he  was 
in  universal  demand,  and  was  compelled  to  take  the  lead, 
which  he  also  kept  till  his  blessed  departure  from  this  world." 
(LebensUlder,  694.)  Dr.  H.  E.  Jacobs  sketches  Muhlenberg's 
character  as  follows:  "Depth  of  religious  conviction,  extraor- 
dinary inwardness  of  character,  apostolic  zeal  for  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  individuals,  absorbing  devotion  to  his  calling  and 
all  its  details,  were  among  his  most  marked  characteristics. 
These  were   combined  with  an  intuitive  penetration  and   ex- 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERA?fISM.  69 

tended  width  of  view,  a  statesmanlike  grasp  of  every  situation 
in  which  he  was  placed,  an  almost  prophetic  foresight,  cool- 
ness, and  discrimination  of  judgment,  and  peculiar  gifts  for 
organization  and  administration."  Dr.  A.  Graebner  writes: 
"The  task  which  Muhlenberg  found  set  before  him  when  he 
entered  upon  the  wild  and  disordered  field  which  had  been 
allotted  to  him  here,  was  such  that,  if  any  one  in  Halle  had 
been  able  to  tell  him  and  had  told  him  what  was  awaiting 
him  in  America,  he  would  hardly  have  found  the  necessary 
courage  and  cheerfulness  to  lay  his  hand  to  the  plow  which 
was  to  convert  this  wild  bramblepatch  into  an  arable  field. 
Still,  where  could  a  second  man  have  been  found  at  that  time 
who  would  have  proven  equal  to  the  task  in  the  same  measure 
as  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg?  Richly  endowed  with  a  robust 
physique  and  a  pious  mind,  with  faithfulness  in  matters  great 
and  small,  with  cheerful,  but  firm  courage,  with  restless  ac- 
tivity and  a  spirit  of  progressive  enterprise,  with  wisdom  and 
prudence,  with  the  ability  to  inform  himself  quickly  and  to 
accommodate  himself  to  the  circumstances,  and,  in  addition  to 
this,  with  the  necessary  independence  of  volition  and  action,  — 
characteristics  seldom  found  combined  in  one  and  the  same 
person,  —  Muhlenberg  was  splendidly  equipped,  both  as  to  de- 
gree and  variety,  with  the  gifts  which  a  missionary  and  an 
organizer  has  need  of.  And  from  the  very  first  day  of  his 
planting  and  watering  God  gave  a  rich  increase  to  his  labors, 
so  rich,  that  Muhlenberg  could  say  with  a  grateful  heart:  'It 
seems  as  though  now  the  time  had  come  that  God  would  visit 
us  with  special  grace  here  in  Pennsylvania.'  Furthermore, 
self-exaltation  was  utterly  foreign  to  him.  'God  does  not  need 
me,'  he  would  say;  'He  can  carry  out  His  work  also  with- 
out me.'  Likewise,  he  was  ever  content  although  he  never  saw 
much  money.  During  the  first  half-year  of  his  stay  in  Phila- 
delphia he  earned  his  board  by  giving  music  lessons."  (279.) 
Dr.  A.  Spaeth:  "Though  there  were  Lutheran  congregations 
and  pastors  among  the  Dutch  on  the  Hudson,  and  among  the 
Swedes  on  the  Delaware,  as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and,  later  on,  among  the  numerous  German 
immigrants,  still  the  real  organization  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America,  on  the  foundation  of  the  fathers,  only  dates  from 
the    middle    of    the    eighteenth    century,    and    is    due    to    the 


70  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Rev.  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg,  by  common  consent  the 
patriarch  of  the  Lutheran  Church  on  this  continent,  through 
whose  efforts  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  'The  Mother 
Synod,'  was  established  in  1748.  In  missionary  zeal,  in  pas- 
toral tact  and  fidelity,  in  organizing  ability  and  personal  piety, 
he  had  no  superior."   {C.  P.  Erauth,  1,  316.) 

MUHLENBERG'S  CONFESSIONALISM. 

45.  Unqualified  Subscription  to  Entire  Book  of  Con- 
cord. —  Like  the  "Fathers  in  Halle,"  Muhlenberg,  self- 
evidently,  desired  to  be  a  Lutheran  and  to  build  a  Lutheran 
Church  in  America.  He  himself  says,  in  a  manner  somewhat 
touchy:  "I  defy  Satan  and  every  lying  spirit  to  lay  at  my 
door  anything  which  contradicts  the  teaching  of  our  apostles 
or  the  Symbolical  Books.  I  have  often  said  and  written  that 
I  have  found  neither  error,  nor  mistake,  nor  any  defect  in 
our  Evangelical  doctrine,  based,  as  it  is,  on  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  and  exhibited  in  our  Symbolical  Books."  Dr.  Spaeth: 
"The  standards  of  the  Lutheran  Church  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury were  accepted  and  endorsed  by  Muhlenberg  without  reser- 
vation, and  in  his  whole  ministerial  work  he  endeavored  to 
come  up  to  this  standard,  as  he  had  solemnly  pledged  himself 
in  his  ordination  vow  before  the  theological  faculty  of  the 
university  at  Leipzig,  on  August  24,  1739,  which  committed  to 
him  the  office  of  'teaching  the  Gospel  and  administering  the 
Sacraments  according  to  the  rule  given  in  the  writings  of  the 
prophets  and  apostles,  the  sum  of  which  is  contained  in  those 
three  symbols,  the  Apostolic,  Nicene,  and  Athanasian,  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  laid  before  Emperor  Charles  V,  A.  D.  1530, 
in  the  Apology  of  the  same,  in  Dr.  Luther's  Large  and  Small 
Catechism,  in  the  Articles  subscribed  to  in  the  Smalcald  Con- 
vention, and  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  He  solemnly  promised 
that  he  would  propose  to  his  hearers  what  would  be  conformed 
and  consentient  to  these  writings,  and  that  he  would  never 
depart  from  the  sense  which  they  give.'  (Dr.  W.  J.  Mann's  The 
Conservatism  of  Henry  Melchior  Muehlenberg,  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  Review,  January,  1888.)  And  this  was  the  position 
not  of  the  patriarch  alone,  but  of  his  colaborers,  of  the  whole 
Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  which  he  organized,  and  of  the  sister- 


EAELT  HISTORY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHEEANISM.  71 

or  daughter-synod  of  New  York,  during  the  lifetime  of  Muhlen- 
berg and  Kunze.  'Those  fathers  were  very  far  from  giving 
the  Lutheran  Church,  as  they  organized  it  on  this  new  field  of 
labor,  a  form  and  character  in  any  essential  point  different 
from  what  the  Lutheran  Church  was  in  the  Old  World,  and 
especially  in  Germany.  They  retained  not  only  the  old  doc- 
trinal standards,  but  also  the  old  traditional  elements  and 
forms  of  worship;  the  church-year  with  its  great  festivals,  its 
Gospel-  and  Epistle-lessons,  the  Liturgy,  the  rite  of  Confirma- 
tion, preparatory  service  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  connected  with 
the  confession  of  sins  and  absolution.  Their  doctrinal  position 
was  unmistakably  Lutheran,  in  the  sense  in  which  Lutheranism 
is  historically  known,  and  is  something  individual  and  distinct, 
and  as  such  stands  in  opposition  to  Romanism  on  the  one  hand, 
and  to  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  all  other  so-called  Protestant  par- 
ties on  the  other.  Those  fathers  were  admitted  to  the  ministry 
on  condition  of  their  own  declaration  that  they  were  in  har- 
mony with  the  Confessio  Augustana  Invariata,  and  with  all 
the  other  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  They 
demanded  of  those  whom  they  admitted  to  the  sacred  office  the 
same  condition.  They  allowed  no  organization  or  constitutions 
of  congregations  without  demanding  the  acknowledgment  of 
all  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  the  doc- 
trinal basis.'"  (1,317.)  In  a  letter  dated  June  14,  1774,  and 
addressed  to  one  of  the  members  of  the  Lutheran  congregation 
at  Charleston,  S.  C,  some  of  whose  troubles  and  difficulties  he 
had  endeavored  to  adjust,  Muhlenberg  stated  the  rule  of  his 
own  personal  course  as  follows:  "During  the  thirty-two  years 
of  my  sojourning  in  America,  time  and  again  occasions  were 
given  me  to  join  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  receive  four  or 
five  times  more  salary  than  my  poor  German  fellow-members 
of  the  Lutheran  faith  gave  me;  but  I  preferred  reproach  in 
and  with  my  people  to  the  treasures  in  Egypt."  (Jacobs,  298.) 
The  confirmation  form  of  the  Agenda  contained  the  question: 
"Do  you  intend  to  remain  true  to  the  truth  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  as  you  have  learned  to  know  it  and  solemnly 
confessed  it?"   (G.,  498.) 

46.   Pledge   of  Pastors   and  Congregations.  —  In  like 
manner  as  Muhlenberg  himself,  all  his  colaborers  and  congre- 


72  EARLY  HISTORY  OP  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

gations  were  pledged  to  the  Lutheran  confessions.  The  re- 
ligious oath  which  Brunnholtz  took  reads,  in  part,  as  follows: 
"I,  Peter  Brunnholtz,  do  solemnly  swear  and  before  God  Al- 
mighty do  take  an  oath  upon  my  soul  .  .  .  that  I  will  abide 
by  the  pure  and  unadulterated  Word  of  God,  as,  according  to 
the  sense  of  the  Spirit,  it  has  been  diligently  compiled  from 
Holy  Scripture  against  all  errorists  in  the  three  chief  Symbols, 
and  especially  also  in  the  true  Lutheran  church-books,  as  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  its  Apology,  the  Smalcald 
Articles,  the  two  Catechisms  of  Luther,  and  in  the  specific 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  that  I  will  teach  according  to  them." 
(G.,  283.)  In  similar  fashion,  Kurtz,  Weygand,  and  all  pastors 
solemnly  promised  to  discharge  their  office  "according  to  the 
pure  doctrine  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  and  all  our  Synodical 
Books."  {Lehre  u.  Wehre,  1856,  120.)  According  to  the  Agenda 
of  1748  the  catechumens  promised  faithfulness  unto  death  "to 
the  truth  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  which  they  had 
solemnly  confessed."  (488.)  From  the  very  outset,  Muhlen- 
berg also  had  the  congregations  subscribe  to  articles  in  which 
they  confessed  themselves  to  God's  Word  and  the  Lutheran 
Symbols.  (299.)  The  congregations,  in  agreement  with  the  con- 
stitution of  1762,  pledged  their  pastors  to  preach  "the  Word  of 
God  according  to  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets 
and  in  conformity  with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession." 
True,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  at  its  organization  in  1748,  did 
not  draw  up  any  special  articles  of  confession,  yet,  according 
to  the  Agenda  which  had  been  previously  adopted,  it  was  re- 
garded as  self-evident  that  all  pastors  and  congregations  sub- 
scribe to  the  Lutheran  Symbols.  The  synodical  constitution 
of  1778,  which  was  entered  in  the  official  book  of  record  begun 
in  1781,  contained  the  following  provisions:  "As  to  his  life 
and  teaching,  every  pastor  is  to  be  found  in  consonance  with 
the  Word  of  God  and  our  Symbolical  Books."  "In  case  com- 
plaints are  lodged  against  teachers,  the  investigation  must  con- 
cern itself  with:  1.  express  errors  against  the  clear  sense  of 
Holy  Writ  and  our  Symbolical  Books  of  faith."  (529.) 
Muhlenberg's  devotion  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  appears  also 
from  the  interest  and  zeal  which  he  showed  in  furthering  the 
institution  of  catechetical  instruction  and  in  establishing 
parochial  schools.     One  of  the  chief  questions  to  engage  the 


EAELT  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  73 

attention  of  the  first  convention  of  Synod  in  1748  was,  "What 
is  the  condition  of  the  schools?"  Yet,  though  Muhlenberg,  in 
the  manner  described,  stood  for  confessional  Lutheranism,  it 
cannot  be  maintained  convincingly  that  his  influence  in  this 
direction  was  sound  and  salubrious  in  every  respect.  His  was 
not  the  genuine  Lutheranism  of  Luther,  but  the  modified 
Lutheranism,  then  advocated  in  Europe  and  Germany  gener- 
ally, notably  in  Halle  and  the  circles  of  the  Pietists,  a  Lu- 
theranism inoculated  with  legalism,  subjectivism,  indiffer- 
entism,  and  unionism.  Muhlenberg's  confessionalism  was  of 
the  historic  kind,  that  is  to  say,  reverence  for  the  venerable 
Lutheran  symbols  rather  than  the  living  power  of  Lutheran 
truth  itself,  directing,  permeating,  and  shaping  one's  entire 
ecclesiastical  activity  both  as  to  teaching  and  practise. 

MUHLENBERG'S  PIETISM. 

47.  Subjectivism  of  Halle  Pietists.  —  Following  are  some 
of  the  aberrations  of  the  Pietists  in  Halle:  That  doctrine  was 
of  minor  importance  for,  and  as  compared  with,  piety;  that 
sanctification  was  not  contained  in,  but  must  be  added  to, 
faith;  that  repentance  and  conversion  were  urged  in  such 
a  manner  as  if  man  himself  could  force  them;  that  such 
Christians  as  could  not  tell  of  certain  peculiar  penitential 
struggles  and  sensations  of  grace  were  regarded  as  uncon- 
verted; that  the  assurance  of  salvation  was  not  based  on  the 
objective  Word  of  God,  but  on  subjective  marks,  notably  such 
as  were  found  in  those  converted  in  the  circles  of  the  Pietists; 
that  the  afflicted,  instead  of  being  comforted  with  the  Gospel 
of  the  unconditional  pardon  of  the  entire  world,  were  bidden 
to  feel  the  pulse  of  their  own  piety;  that  such  as  did  not 
manifest  the  symptoms  of  conversion  a  la  Halle,  were  judged 
uncharitably  and  looked  down  upon  as  not  being  truly  con- 
verted; that  the  "revived"  and  "awakened"  were  regarded  as 
the  real  church  in  the  Church,  the  ecclesiolae  in  ecclesia. 
And  what  of  the  pietism  of  the  Halle  emissaries  in  Pennsyl- 
vania ?  Dr.  Mann  declared  concerning  Muhlenberg  and  his  co- 
laborers:  "Their  pietism  was  truly  Lutheran  piety,  a  warm- 
hearted, devout,  practical  Lutheranism."  (Spaeth,  1,  318.) 
However,  traces  of  the  morbid  and  infected  Lutheranism  cul- 


74  EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

tivated  by  Pietists,  were  but  too  apparent  also  in  Muhlenberg 
and  the  associates  carefully  selected  for  him  by  Francke  and 
Freylinghausen  in  Halle.  The  piety  for  which  they  strove  so 
earnestly  and  zealously  was,  in  more  than  one  respect,  neither 
truly  evangelical  nor  soundly  Lutheran,  but  of  a  legalistic  and 
subjective  nature.  They  delighted  in  evangelistic  sermons  de- 
signed to  convert  men  in  the  manner  of  Halle.  They  endeavored 
to  ascertain  who  were  the  truly  converted  in  their  congrega- 
tions. As  a  standard  they  applied  their  own  experiences  and 
as  models  the  Halle  converts.  Instead  of  immediately  com- 
forting terrified  sinners  with  the  full  consolation  of  the  Gospel, 
they  proved  them  "according  to  the  marks  of  the  state  of 
grace."  Graebner:  "While  Diaconus  in  Grosshennersdorf, 
Muhlenberg  had  already  published  a  polemical  tract  against 
Dr.  Balthasar  Mentzer,  who  had  attacked  Pietism,  and  had 
pictured  the  time  before  the  rise  of  Pietism  as  a  time  of  dark- 
ness, in  which  God  had  'set  up  a  true  light  here  and  there, 
until  at  last  the  faithful  servants  of  the  Lord,  the  sainted 
Spener,  Francke,  Breithaupt,  Anton,  and  others  arose'  and 
'again  brought  forth  the  Bible.'  At  that  time  Muhlenberg  ad- 
vocated private  meetings  for  souls  who  had  been  'awakened 
from  the  sleep  of  sin,'  to  which  the  Burgomaster  of  Eimbeck 
referred  when  he  sent  word  to  Muhlenberg  'to  cease  the  pietistic 
conventicles,  as  they  were  against  the  law  of  the  land.'"  (315.) 

48.  Converts,  Prayer-Meetings,  Revivals. — Brunnholtz, 
whose  work  was  highly  praised  by  Muhlenberg,  says  of  his 
parishioners,  whom,  nevertheless,  he  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Table,  that,  for  the  greater  part,  they  were  "totally  blind  and 
dead,"  people  who  had  not  yet  experienced  any  "true  change 
of  heart";  that  in  present-day  congregations  one  must  "be 
content  with  the  gleanings  while  looking  and  waiting  for 
traces  of  divine  activity,  where,  when,  in  whom,  and  whether 
the  Spirit  can  give  a  rich  harvest."  It  is  only  too  true,  he 
continues,  "that  the  great  multitude,  both  old  and  young,  are 
still  buried  in  carnal-mindedness  and  in  great  ignorance,  and 
stand  in  need  of  a  true  conversion."  "There  are  indeed  a  few, 
some  also  in  my  two  congregations,  concerning  whom  I  have 
the  well-founded  hope  that  they  have  been  awakened  from  the 
spiritual  sleep  of  sin  and  are  being  drawn  to  the  Son  by  the 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  75 

Father."  "With  regard  to  my  congregation  here  in  Phila- 
delphia, I  am  not  able  to  boast  very  much  of  the  majority  and 
of  the  outwardly  great  number,  since  there  is  still  much  cor- 
ruption among  them.  The  Lord,  however,  has  granted  me 
a  small  remnant,  who  have  been  awakened  by  the  Word,  and 
who  earnestly  seek  after  the  paths  of  peace,  permitting  them- 
selves quietly,  but  in  earnestness,  to  be  prepared  for  the  rest 
of  God."  Muhlenberg  says:  "True  repentance  and  conversion 
according  to  the  Word  of  God  is  a  difficult  matter  and  a  rare 
occurrence."  "We  continued  our  labors  upon  the  inner  and 
outward  upbuilding  of  the  Church,  because  a  small,  divinely 
sanctified  seed  was  noticed  among  them."  What  Brunnholtz 
and  Muhlenberg  looked  for  in  the  communicant  members  of 
their  congregations  whom  they  regarded  as  unconverted  were, 
no  doubt,  the  Halle  symptoms.  In  1748  submissiveness  to  be 
guided  by  the  pastor  was  numbered  among  these  marks.  WThen 
the  elders  of  the  congregation  in  Lancaster  opposed  their  pastor 
and  insisted  upon  their  opinion,  which  was  not  wrong  by  any 
means,  they  were  admonished  "to  convert  themselves  with  all 
their  hearts,  since  otherwise  they  could  not  properly  wait  on 
their  office,  and  the  pastor's  trials  in  the  congregation  would 
become  too  great."  (319.)  The  "small  remnant  of  the  con- 
verted" were  nurtured  by  the  pastors  in  "special  prayer- 
meetings  in  the  houses."  (320.)  This  was  the  practise  of 
Brunnholtz  in  Philadelphia.  And  Muhlenberg  wrote  from  New 
York  in  1751:  "I  have  learned  that  among  the  Reformed  here 
there  is  a  small  body  of  awakened  souls  who  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness.  It  is  said  that  this  awakening  was  brought 
about  by  the  younger  of  the  two  Reformed  pastors.  My  hostess 
also  belongs  to  the  Reformed  congregation.  Some  years  ago 
she  was  so  terrified  by  the  opinion  of  the  unconditional  decree 
of  God  that  a  hysterical  malady  set  in  with  which  she  is  still 
somewhat  afflicted.  I  searched  for  the  marks  of  the  state  of 
grace.  She  answered  sensibly,  which  gave  me  hope  that  she  is 
in  a  state  of  grace.  My  host  desired  me  to  go  into  a  private 
chamber  with  him  and  his  weak  spouse,  and  to  pray  in  secret, 
which  we  did."  "At  the  close  of  the  day  my  dear  host  again 
desired  that  I  pray  with  him  and  his  wife  in  private,  since  she 
thereby  had  experienced  strength  and  relief  on  the  former 
occasion.     On  the  30th  of  July  I  was  taken  to  the  pious  Eng- 


76  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

lish  merchant,  who  had  some  awakened  souls  with  him.  They 
sang  a  psalm,  read  a  chapter  from  a  devotional  book,  and 
urged  me  to  pray  at  the  close.  After  a  time  the  dear  souls  re- 
turned to  their  homes,  and  I  remained  with  him  till  eleven 
o'clock  and  employed  the  time  in  pleasant  and  edifying  con- 
versation with  him  and  his  godly  wife."  "August  1,  Saturday 
evening,  I  preached  penitential  sermons  both  in  the  German 
and  Dutch  languages.  .  .  .  The  church  was  well  filled  on  this 
occasion,  and  the  parting  seemed  to  touch  and  sadden  the 
awakened  and  well-meaning  souls."  Weygand  continued  the 
work  in  the  spirit  of  Muhlenberg,  conducting  "private  hours" 
with  the  "awakened  souls,"  and  finding  particular  delight  in 
some  souls  who  had  been  awakened  by  Wesley.  When  White- 
field  returned  to  Pennsylvania  in  1762,  Dr.  Wrangel  entered 
into  relations  with  him  and  began  to  conduct  prayer-meetings 
in  a  private  house  in  the  city,  and  when  the  room  in  that  house 
could  no  longer  contain  the  people,  Muhlenberg's  congregation 
granted  him  the  use  of  their  church.  When  not  prevented  by 
other  duties,  Muhlenberg  regularly  attended  these  English  de- 
votional hours.  The  congregational  constitution  of  1762  es- 
pecially reserved  for  the  pastor  the  right  to  "conduct  hours  of 
edification,  exhortation,  and  prayer  in  churches  and  schools, 
on  week-days  or  evenings,  as  necessity  might  dictate,  and  as 
strength  and  circumstances  might  permit."  (383.  425.  440.  485.) 
Dr.  J.  H.  C.  Helmuth  was  the  first  to  report  on  a  revivalistic 
awakening  in  his  congregation  at  Lancaster,  in  1773.  Later 
on,  1811,  Helmuth,  in  the  name  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod, 
wrote  a  letter  to  Paul  Henkel,  then  on  his  missionary  tours 
in  Ohio,  warning  him  not  to  participate  in  camp-meetings,  "if 
he  should  come  into  contact  with  similar  aberrations  from  our 
Lutheran  ways."  But  even  at  this  time  Synod  did  not  take 
a  decided  stand  against  revivalistic  enthusiasm.  Already  in 
the  first  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  reports,  coming  out 
of  the  Synod,  such  as  the  following  were  heard:  "Here  the 
fire  is  also  burning."  "Here  we  behold  miracles  of  God's  grace ; 
everywhere  we  find  the  wounded,  the  weeping,  the  moaning, 
and  those  who  are  praying.  Some  cried  out,  'My  God,  what 
shall  I  do  that  I  may  be  saved?'  Others  asked  with  tears, 
'Can  I  still  be  saved?'"  (549.)  In  1810  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  resolved  to  have  Philip  Henkel  try  out  a  revival,  since 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  77 

such  awakenings  were  also  to  be  desired  among  Lutherans. 
During  the  revival  agitation  from  1830  to  1850,  the  English 
Lutheran  churches  caught  the  contagion  in  great  numbers. 
They  introduced  emotional  preaching,  the  mourners'  bench, 
protracted  meetings,  and,  vying  with  the  fanatical  sects,  de- 
nounced as  spiritually  dead  formalists  all  who  adhered  to  the 
old  ways  of  Lutheranism.  In  its  issue  of  March  21,  1862,  the 
Lutheran  Observer  declared  that  the  "Symbolism"  of  the  Old 
Lutherans  in  St.  Louis  meant  the  death  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  which  nothing  but  revivals  were  able  to  save.  (L.  u.  W. 
1862,  152;  1917,  374.)  Muhlenberg's  Pietism  had  helped  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  this  Methodistic  aberration. 

MUHLENBERG'S  HIERARCHICAL   TENDENCIES. 

49.  Government  of  and  by  the  Ministers.  —  A  clear  con- 
ception of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  and  of  the  holy  ministry 
was  something  Muhlenberg  did  not  possess.  Hence  his  congre- 
gations also  were  not  educated  to  true  independence  and  to  the 
proper  knowledge  and  exercise  of  their  priestly  rights  and 
duties.  Dr.  Mann  says  of  Muhlenberg  and  his  coworkers: 
"These  fathers  were  very  far  from  giving  the  Lutheran  Church, 
as  they  organized  it  on  this  new  field  of  labor,  a  form  and 
character  in  any  essential  point  different  from  what  the  Lu- 
theran Church  was  in  the  Old  World,  and  especially  in  Ger- 
many." (Spaeth,  C.  P.  Erauth,  1,  317.)  The  pastor  ruled  the 
elders;  the  pastor  and  the  elders  ruled  the  congregation; 
the  synod  ruled  the  pastor,  the  elders,  and  the  congregation; 
the  College  of  Pastors  ruled  the  synod  and  the  local  pastor  to- 
gether with  his  elders  and  his  congregation;  and  all  of  these 
were  subject  to,  and  ruled  by,  the  authorities  in  Europe.  The 
local  congregations  were  taught  to  view  themselves,  not  as  in- 
dependent, but  as  parts  of,  and  subject  to,  the  body  of  United 
Congregations  and  Pastors.  The  constitution  for  congregations 
simply  presupposed  that  a  congregation  was  a  member  of,  and 
subordinate  to,  Synod.  (499.)  This  appears  also  from  a  docu- 
ment signed  by  the  elders  of  Tulpehocken  and  Northkill 
(Nordkiel),  August  24,  1748,  two  days  before  the  organization 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  In  it  the  elders,  in  the  name  of 
the  congregations,  state  and  promise:    "In  this  it  always  re- 


78  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

mains  presupposed  that  we  with  the  United  Congregations  con- 
stitute one  whole  Ev.  Lutheran  congregation,  which  acknowl- 
edges and  respects  as  her  lawful  pastors  all  the  pastors  who 
constitute  the  College  of  Pastors  (Collegium  Pastorum)  and 
remains  in  the  closest  connection  with  them,  as  being  our 
regular  teachers.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  we  have  the  desire  to  be 
embodied  and  incorporated  in  the  United  Congregations  in 
Pennsylvania,  and  to  be  recognized  and  received  by  them  as 
brethren  and  members  of  a  special  congregation  of  the  Ev.  Lu- 
theran Church,  and  consequently  to  share  in  the  pastoral  care 
of  the  College  of  all  the  Rev.  Pastors  of  the  United  Congre- 
gations. In  accordance  herewith  we  most  publicly  and  solemnly 
desire,  acknowledge  and  declare  all  the  Rev.  Pastors  of  the 
United  Church-Congregations  to  be  our  pastors  and  ministers 
( Seelsorger  und  Hirten )  ;  we  also  give  them  complete  authority 
to  provide  for  the  welfare  of  our  souls,  how  and  through  whom, 
also  as  long  as,  they  choose.  We  furthermore  promise  to  re- 
gard the  Rev.  College  of  Pastors  of  the  Ev.  Lutheran  Congrega- 
tions in  Pennsylvania  as  a  lawful  and  regular  presbyterium 
and  ministerium  and  particularly  as  our  pastors-  and  minis- 
ters-in-chief, also  to  respect  and  regard  them  as  such,  without 
whose  previously  known  advice  and  consent  we  do,  order,  re- 
solve, or  change  nothing;  hence  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
any  [other]  pastor,  nor  even,  without  their  previously  known 
advice  and  consent,  to  undertake  anything  in  important  church- 
matters  with  the  pastor  whom  they  have  sent  to  us;  on  the 
contrary,  to  approve  of  and  with  all  our  powers  to  observe  and 
execute  whatever,  in  church-matters  of  our  own  and  the  con- 
gregations, the  whole  Rev.  College  of  Pastors  will  resolve,  and 
properly  indicate  and  make  known  to  us.  Furthermore  we 
promise  to  recognize,  receive,  respect,  honor  and  hear  the 
teacher  [minister]  as  our  lawful  and  divinely  called  teacher 
as  long  as  the  Rev.  College  of  Pastors  will  see  fit  to  leave  him 
with  us;  nor  to  make  any  opposition  in  case  they  should  be 
pleased  for  important  reasons  to  call  him  away  and  to  put 
another  in  his  place;  moreover,  to  receive  and  regard  his  suc- 
cessor with  equal  love  and  duty.  We  furthermore  promise,  if 
(which  God  forfend)  a  misunderstanding  or  separation  should 
arise  between  the  whole  congregation  or  part  of  it  and  the 
teacher,  or  between  members  of  the  congregation,  to  report  this 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERA1S1SM.  79 

immediately  to  the  Rev.  College  of  Pastors,  and  to  await  their 
decision,  and  to  abide  by  it."  (301  f.)  Graebner:  "One's  in- 
dignation is  roused  when  reading  how  the  elders  of  the  Lan- 
caster congregation  were  treated  at  the  first  synod.  These 
men  defended  the  by  no  means  improper  demand  of  their  con- 
gregation that  such  as  had  fallen  away  to  the  sects  and  again 
returned  should  subscribe  to  the  constitution  of  the  congre- 
gation before  they  once  more  were  recognized  as  members.  In 
spite  of  the  opinion  of  the  assembly  and  the  utterly  wrong  ad- 
monition 'to  leave  it  to  their  pastor,'  the  elders  'adhered  to 
their  opinion.'  Immediately  their  conversion  is  questioned,  and 
'all  the  elders  who  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly  converted  are 
admonished  to  convert  themselves  with  all  their  heart.'  The 
remark  of  the  minutes,  'They  kept  silence,'  conveys  the  im- 
pression that  the  rebuke  had  been  merited,  and  that  the  cut 
was  felt."  (320.)  According  to  the  constitution  for  congre- 
gations, subscribed  to  October  18,  1762,  by  Muhlenberg  and 
Handschuh  and  270  members  of  their  congregations,  the  grades 
of  admonition  and  church  discipline  were:  1.  admonition  by 
the  preacher  alone;  2.  admonition  by  the  preacher  in  the 
presence  of  the  elders  and  wardens;  3.  expulsion  before  or  by 
the  whole  church  council.  (492.)  The  same  constitution  con- 
tains the  provision:  If  any  deacon  or  elder  who  has  been 
elected  to  perform  this  arduous  duty  refuses  to  accept  the 
office  without  sufficient  reasons,  "he  is  not  to  be  excused  until 
he  has  made  a  considerable  contribution  to  the  church 
treasury."  (490.)  At  synod  the  pastors  ruled  supreme.  The 
lay  delegates,  consisting  of  the  elders  of  the  congregations, 
merely  reported  to  Synod,  when  asked,  concerning  the  work, 
fidelity,  and  efficiency  of  their  pastors,  the  parochial 
schools,  etc.,  and  presented  requests  to  Synod.  But  they 
had  no  voice  in  her  decisions.  In  the  common  assembly  of 
the  pastors  and  laymen  no  vote  was  taken.  The  Lutheran 
Cyclopedia  says:  "The  deliberations  were  exclusively  those  of 
the  pastors,  while  the  lay  delegates  were  present  only  to  fur- 
nish the  needed  information  concerning  local  conditions  and 
the  fidelity  of  pastors."  (493.)  Furthermore,  the  ministerium, 
the  college  of  pastors,  conferred  the  office  and  made  pastors 
through  ordination,  a  rite  considered  essential  to  the  ministry, 
and  without  which  no  one  was  regarded  a  lawful  and  full- 


80  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

fledged  pastor.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  J.  A.  Wey- 
gand  it  was  held  that  he  was  given  the  right  to  perform  all 
the  functions  pertaining  to  his  office,  not  by  the  call  of  the  con- 
gregation which  he  had  accepted,  but  by  his  subsequent  ordi- 
nation.  (432.) 

50.  Obedience  to  Ministerium  and  Fathers  in  Halle.  — ■ 
In  the  ordination  the  pastors  were  pledged  to  obey  the  Minis- 
terium. In  Weygand's  call  the  clause  was  embodied,  "that  he 
would  submit  to  the  investigation  and  judgment  of  the  United 
Pastors  and  the  Venerable  Fathers"  in  Halle.  (452.)  The 
manner  in  which  Kurtz  was  bound  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing points  of  the  "Revers"  which  he  had  to  sign  before  his 
ordination  in  1748:  "2.  To  consider  my  congregation  nothing 
but  a  part  of  the  United  Congregations.  ...  4.  To  introduce 
no  ceremonies  into  the  public  worship  or  into  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Sacraments  other  than  those  which  have  been 
introduced  by  the  College  of  Pastors  of  the  United  Congrega- 
tions, also  to  use  no  other  book  of  forms  than  the  one  which 
will  be  assigned  to  me  by  them.  5.  To  undertake  nothing  of 
importance  alone  nor  with  the  assistance  of  the  church-council, 
except  it  have  been  previously  communicated  to  the  Reverend 
College  of  Pastors,  and  their  opinion  have  been  obtained,  as 
well  as  to  abide  by  their  good  counsel  and  advice.  6.  To  render 
a  verbal  or  written  account  of  my  pastorate  at  the  demand  of 
the  Reverend  College  of  Pastors.  7.  To  keep  a  diary  and  day- 
book and  to  record  therein  official  acts  and  remarkable  oc- 
currences. 8.  Should  they  call  me  hence,  to  accept  the  call,  and 
not  to  resist."  (305.)  Before  his  ordination  Pastor  J.  H. 
Schaum  had  to  sign  a  "Revers"  and,  with  a  handclasp,  seal 
the  promise  to  the  United  Pastors  that  he  as  their  adjunct 
"would  be  faithful  and  obedient  to  them."  To  the  congrega- 
tions the  Ministerium  did  not  only  prescribe  the  liturgy,  but 
appointed  and  removed  their  pastors  as  they  saw  fit.  Pastor 
Schaum's  call  to  New  York  was  signed  by  the  four  pastors, 
Muhlenberg,  Brunnholtz,  Handschuh,  and  Kurtz  as  their  own 
vocation,  in  their  own  name,  not  in  the  name  of  the  congre- 
gation. (327.)  The  congregation  at  Lancaster  desired  Kurtz 
as  their  pastor  instead  of  Handschuh,  whom  the  Ministerium 
was  planning  to  send  to  them.  Muhlenberg,  however,  reports: 
"We  bade  them  consider  this  and  demanded  a  short  answer, 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  81 

giving  them  to  understand  that,  if  a  single  one  of  them  would 
be  restive  and  dissatisfied  with  our  advice  and  arrangement, 
we  would  consent  to  give  them  neither  the  one  nor  the  other, 
but  would  turn  to  the  other  congregations  still  vacant  and 
leave  the  dust  to  them.  They  must  consider  it  a  special  favor 
that  we  had  come  to  them  first."  Graebner  comments  on  this 
as  follows:  "One  can  safely  say  that  there  could  be  found 
to-day  in  all  America  not  a  single  Lutheran  pastor  or  congre- 
gation who  would  consent  to  concede  to  a  synod  such  powers 
as  Pastor  Kurtz  and  the  congregation  at  Tulpehocken  yielded 
to  the  'United  Pastors'  in  1748."  (321.)  The  superiors  of  the 
United  Pastors  and  their  congregations  were  the  "Fathers  in 
Europe."  They  had  commissioned  them,  and  to  them  they 
were  responsible.  All  decisions  of  Synod  in  doctrinal,  litur- 
gical, and  governmental  questions  were  subject  to  the  advice 
and  approval  of  the  authorities  in  Halle.  When  the  church 
council  of  the  congregation  in  Philadelphia  sent  a  humble 
petition  to  the  Synod  in  1750,  requesting  permission  to  re- 
tain the  services  of  Pastor  Brunnholtz  for  themselves,  they 
received  the  answer:  We  have  no  right  to  make  changes 
without  the  previous  knowledge  and  permission  of  the  "Fathers 
in  Europe."  (330.)  In  order  to  ordain  Weygand,  Muhlenberg 
had  to  get  permission  from  the  "Fathers  in  Europe."  (432.) 
Even  such  pastors  as  Stoever  and  Wagner,  who  did  not  unite 
with  the  Ministerium,  were  by  Muhlenberg  designated  as  "such 
as  had  run  of  themselves,"  as  "so-called  pastors,"  who  had 
"neither  an  inner  nor  an  outward  call,"  and  "who  were  con- 
cerned about  nothing  but  their  daily  bread."  And  why?  Be- 
cause, according  to  Muhlenberg,  they  had  not  "been  sent"  (by 
the  Ministerium  or  the  Fathers)  ;  because  they  were  not  sub- 
ject to  a  consistory,  did  not  render  account  of  their  pastorates, 
and  would  not  observe  the  same  order  with  those  who  had 
come  from  Halle.  (311.)  Concerning  Weygand,  who  arrived 
in  1748,  Muhlenberg  reports:  "I  asked  him  what  he  was  now 
going  to  do  in  Pennsylvania,  whether  he  intended  to  be  for  us 
or  against  us;  if  he  desired  to  be  with  us,  it  would  be  neces- 
sary for  us  first  to  obtain  permission  from  our  Venerable 
Fathers.  If,  however,  he  intended  to  be  against  us,  he  might 
come  on,  we  entertained  no  fear,  as  we  had  already  encountered 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  6 


82  EABLT  HISTORY  OF  AMEBICAN  LXJTHEBANISM. 

such  as  had  run  of  themselves.  He  answered,  'God  forfend!' 
He  would  not  side  with  the  Ministerium,  to  which  men  be- 
longed like  Valentine  Kraft,  Andrew  Stoever,  Wagner,  and  the 
like,  though  they  had  requested  him  to  join  them;  that,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  would  not  be  in  our  way  either,  but  rather 
go  elsewhere  and  begin  a  school  at  some  place  or  another." 
(431.  322.) 

51.  Constitution  of  1792. — The  new  constitution,  adopted 
by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  in  1792,  though  granting  a  modi- 
fied suffrage  to  lay  delegates  in  all  important  questions,  left 
the  synod  what  it  had  been,  a  body  governed  by  the  clergy. 
Dr.  Graebner  says :  "It  has  been  pointed  out  how  this  [hier- 
archical] trait  plainly  appeared  already  when  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  was  founded;  later  on  we  meet  it  everywhere 
and  in  all  synods  organized  prior  to  the  General  Synod.  Ac- 
cording to  the  conception  generally  prevailing  a  synod  had  its 
real  foundation,  its  essential  part,  not  in  the  congregations, 
but  in  the  preachers.  This  idea  governed  their  thinking  and 
speaking.  The  'preachers  of  the  State  of  Ohio  united  with 
some  of  the  preachers  in  Pennsylvania  living  nearest  to  them, 
and  established  a  conference  or  synod  of  their  own.'  Some 
'preachers  west  of  the  Susquehanna'  were  granted  their  petition 
of  being  permitted  to  form  a  synod.  In  agreement  herewith 
they  preferred  to  speak  of  a  synod  according  to  its  chief  and 
fundamental  part,  as  a  'ministerium.'  The  constitution  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod  began:  'We  Evangelical  Lutheran 
preachers  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  neighboring  States,  by  our 
signatures  to  this  constitution,  acknowledging  ourselves  as 
a  body,  name  this  union  of  ours  The  German  Evangelical  Lu- 
theran Ministerium  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  neighboring 
States,  and  our  individual  meetings  A  Ministerial  Assembly.' 
Lay  delegates  of  the  congregations,  though  admitted  to  the 
synodical  conventions  in  Pennsylvania  and  at  other  places, 
were  nowhere  recognized  as  members  having  equal  rights  with 
the  ministers.  It  was  as  late  as  1792  that  the  lay  delegates 
obtained  the  right  to  vote  in  Pennsylvania,  and  even  then  only 
with  restrictions.  In  the  affairs  of  greatest  import  (doctrinal 
matters,  admission  of  new  members,  etc. )  they  were  privileged 
neither  to  speak  nor  to  vote.  On  this  point  the  ministerial 
order  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  declared:    'Lay  delegates  who 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  83 

have  a  right  to  vote  shall  sit  together  at  one  place  in  the 
assembly;  they  are  privileged  to  offer  motions,  and  to  give 
their  opinion  and  cast  their  votes  in  all  questions  submitted 
for  decision  and  determination,  except  in  matters  pertaining 
to  the  learning  of  a  candidate  or  a  catechist,  to  questions  of 
orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy,  the  admission  to,  and  expulsion 
from,  the  ministerium,  and  other,  similar  cases,  for  the  minis- 
terial assembly  has  cognizance  of  such  as  these.'  The  consti- 
tution of  the  New  York  Ministerium  contained  the  same  pro- 
vision, chap.  7,  §  4:  'Each  lay  delegate  shall  have  a  right  to 
take  part  in  the  debates  of  the  House,  to  offer  resolutions,  and 
to  vote  on  all  questions,  except  the  examining,  licensing,  or 
ordaining  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  the  admission  of 
ministers  into  the  association  or  their  exclusion  from  it,  and 
the  discussion  of  weighty  articles  of  faith  or  cases  of  con- 
science.' The  right  of  a  layman  to  vote  was  regarded  as 
grounded  in  that  of  the  minister,  not  the  right  of  both  in  the 
congregation.  When  a  minister  lost  his  vote,  the  delegate  of 
the  congregation  lost  his  too."  The  constitution  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  provided:  Such  lay  delegates  only  "as  have 
an  ordained  preacher  or  licensed  candidate,  and  whose  teacher 
is  himself  present,"  shall  have  a  right  to  vote.  Accordingly, 
"no  more  lay  delegates  can  cast  their  votes  than  the  number 
of  ordained  preachers  and  licensed  candidates  present."  Fur- 
thermore, the  resolutions  of  Synod  were  regarded  as  binding 
on  the  congregations.  The  constitution  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Ministerium  provided,  chap.  6,  §  14:  "Whereas  the  United  Con- 
gregations are  represented  in  the  synodical  assembly  by  their 
delegates  and  have  a  seat  and  vote  in  it,  they  accordingly  are 
bound  willingly  to  observe  the  decisions  and  resolutions  of  the 
synodical  assembly  and  of  the  ministerium."  Chap.  7,  §  5  of 
the  constitution  of  the  New  York  Ministerium  read:  "Every 
congregation  which  is  represented  by  a  delegate  in  the  synods 
of  this  body  is  bound  to  receive,  and  submit  to,  the  resolutions 
and  recommendations  of  the  ministerium,  and  to  bear  its  part 
of  all  expenses  and  services  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the 
associated  churches  generally  and  the  advancement  of  the  com- 
mon cause.  And  if  any  congregation  perseveres  in  refusing 
such  submission,  it  shall  no  longer  be  entitled  to  a  representa- 
tion in  this  body."   (693ff.) 


84  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

MUHLENBERG'S  UNIONISM. 

52.  Attitude  toward  Non-Lutherans.  —  In  the  Lutheran 
Encyclopedia  H.  E.  Jacobs  says  in  praise  of  Muhlenberg:  "He 
knew  how  to  combine  width  of  view  and  cordiality  of  friend- 
ship towards  those  of  other  communions,  with  strict  adherence 
to  principle."  (331.)  Similar  views  had  been  expressed  by 
Dr.  W.  J.  Mann  at  the  First  Free  Lutheran  Diet  at  Phila- 
delphia. In  his  "Theses  on  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church  in  This  Country"  he  said:  "Their  Lutheranism 
did  not  differ  from  the  Lutheran  orthodoxy  of  the  preceding 
period,  in  the  matter  of  doctrine,  but  to  an  extent  in  the 
manner  of  applying  it.  It  was  orthodoxy  practically  vitalized. 
They  were  less  polemical  and  theoretical.  Whilst  tolerant 
toward  those  of  other  convictions,  they  were,  however,  neither 
indifferent  nor  unionistically  inclined,  and  never  conformed 
Lutheranism  to  any  other  form  of  Christianity,  though  in  their 
days  the  pressure  in  this  direction  was  heavy."  ( Spaeth,  C.  P. 
Krauth,  1,  318.)  However,  though  Muhlenberg's  intentions  un- 
doubtedly were  to  be  and  remain  a  Lutheran,  his  fraternal 
intercourse  and  intimate  fellowship  with  the  Reformed,  Episco- 
palians, Methodists,  and  other  denominations,  was  of  a  nature 
incompatible  with  true  Lutheranism.  He  evidently  regarded 
the  various  Christian  communions  as  sister  churches,  who  had 
practically  the  same  divine  right  to  exist  and  to  propagate 
their  distinctive  views  as  the  Lutheran  Church.  Such  was  the 
principle  of  indifferentism  on  which  Muhlenberg  based  his  prac- 
tise of  fraternal  recognition  and  fellowship.  The  natural  and 
inevitable  result  of  his  relations  with  the  sects  was  that  the 
free,  open,  and  necessary  confession  of  Lutheran  truth  over 
against  Reformed  error  was  weakened  and  muffled,  and  finally 
smothered  and  entirely  silenced  and  omitted.  Nor  can  it  be 
denied  that  Muhlenberg,  by  this  unionism  and  indifferentism, 
wasted  and  corrupted  much  of  the  rich  blessings  which  God 
bestowed,  and  purposed  to  bestow,  on  the  American  Lutheran 
Church  through  him.  Like  Dr.  Wrangel  and  the  Swedes  in 
Delaware  generally,  Muhlenberg  and  his  associates  entertained 
the  opinion  that  especially  the  Lutherans  and  Episcopalians 
were  not  separated  by  any  essential  doctrinal  differences.  In- 
deed, the  Germans  in  Pennsylvania,  like  the  Swedes  in  Dela- 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  85 

ware,  seem  at  times  to  have  seriously  considered  a  union  be- 
tween the  Episcopalians  and  the  Lutherans.  In  brief,  Muhlen- 
berg's attitude  toward  the  Reformed  and  other  sects  was  of 
a  nature  which  cannot  be  justified  as  Lutheran  nor  construed 
as  non-unionistic  in  character. 

53.  The  Facts  in  the  Case.  —  From  the  very  beginning 
to  the  end  of  his  activity  in  America  the  practise  of  Muhlen- 
berg was  not  free  from  indifferentism  and  unionism.  Already 
on  his  voyage  across  the  ocean  he  had  conducted  services  ac- 
cording to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  (G.,  322.)  Novem- 
ber 25,  1742,  Muhlenberg  had  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  and  on 
December  28th  of  the  same  year  he  wrote  in  his  journal:  "In 
the  afternoon  I  visited  the  English  pastor  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  He  was  very  cordial,  and  informed  me  that  he  had 
always  been  a  good  friend  of  our  Lutheran  brethren,  the 
Swedish  missionaries,  and  desired  to  be  on  friendly  terms  also 
with  me."  (267.)  In  1743  Muhlenberg  signified  his  willing- 
ness to  build  a  union  church  with  the  Reformed  in  case  they 
were  willing  to  shoulder  their  part  of  the  expenses.  (272.) 
In  1751  he  reported  from  New  York:  "May  31,  I  visited 
Mr.  Barclay,  the  most  prominent  pastor  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  whom  the  Archbishop  has  appointed  commissioner  of 
the  province  of  New  York.  .  .  .  The  Dutch  Reformed  have 
at  present  four  pastors.  I  called  on  the  oldest  of  them, 
Mr.  Du  Bois,  who  received  me  cordially.  Thereupon  I  visited 
the  youngest  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Ministerium.  I  visited 
also  the  third  member  of  this  body,  who,  together  with  his 
wife,  carried  on  a  beautiful  and  edifying  conversation,  so  that 
I  was  truly  delighted."  (421.)  "June  28,  I  visited  Mr.  Pember- 
ton,  the  pastor  of  the  English  Presbyterian  congregation,  for 
the  first  time.  He  was  much  pleased  with  my  short  call,  and 
remarked  that  he  had  received  a  letter  from  Pastor  Tennent 
in  Philadelphia,  who  had  mentioned  my  name  and  advised  him 
to  cultivate  my  company.  Almost  immediately  he  began  to 
speak  of  the  sainted  Professor  Francke,  saying  that  he  had 
read  several  of  his  Latin  works.  Besides  this  we  had  several 
other  edifying  conversations.  Upon  my  departure  he  asked  me 
to  visit  him  frequently."  (422.)  "July  22,  my  host  and  I  drove 
to  the  oldest  Reformed  pastor,  who  gave  us  a  cordial  recep- 


86  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

tion.  In  the  afternoon  we  visited  one  of  the  elders  of  my 
congregation.  In  the  evening  the  younger  Reformed  pastor 
visited  me."  (425.)  "On  the  23d  I  again  preached  in  Dutch 
on  the  opening  verses  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew.  The 
two  Reformed  pastors  and  a  large  number  of  people  were 
present."  (425.)  "August  17,  I  preached  a  penitential  sermon 
and  had  confession.  The  church  was  filled  with  Lutherans  and 
Reformed,  among  whom  was  also  the  younger  pastor."  (428.) 
"August  21,  the  members  of  the  congregation  who  live  near 
by,  several  Reformed  neighbors,  and  a  number  of  friends  of 
New  York  assembled  to  hear  my  farewell  sermon  at  that 
place."  (429.)  "May  11,  our  Dutch  congregation-members  who 
live  near  by,  and  some  Reformed  neighbors,  were  invited  to 
attend  an  hour  of  edification."  (434.)  "In  the  afternoon  I  bade 
farewell  to  the  younger  Reformed  pastor."  (439.)  "Early  on 
Tuesday  morning  the  Reformed  Pastor  Schlatter  came  to  my 
home  and  embraced  me  after  the  custom  of  our  old  and  un- 
feigned love."  (439.)  "In  the  evening  I  was  called  to  the  six 
Reformed  pastors  who  had  arrived.  I  went  and  welcomed  them 
with  the  words :  'Behold  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst 
of  wolves;  be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as 
doves.'  July  30,  I  was  taken  to  the  pious  English  merchant, 
as  he  had  some  awakened  souls  with  him.  They  sang  a  psalm, 
read  a  chapter  from  a  devotional  book,  and  in  conclusion  urged 
me  to  pray.  After  the  dear  souls  had  returned  to  their  homes, 
I  remained  with  him  and  had  a  very  delightful  and  edifying 
conversation  with  him  and  his  pious  wife."  (440.)  Muhlen- 
berg praises  the  Episcopalian  Richard  Peters  as  a  "moderate 
theologian,"  possessed  of  a  "catholic  spirit,"  and  reports  in 
1760:  "On  the  ninth  and  tenth  of  August  Mr.  Richard  Peters, 
secretary  of  the  province  and  president  of  the  Academy  in 
Philadelphia,  visited  me  in  Providence.  In  the  morning  he 
attended  our  German  service,  with  which,  he  said,  he  was 
greatly  delighted.  In  the  afternoon  he  himself  delivered  a  very 
solid  and  edifying  sermon  to  a  large  audience."  (516.)  After 
his  removal  to  Philadelphia,  in  1761,  Muhlenberg  wrote:  "On 
Monday,  March  16,  I  intended  quietly  to  leave  the  city.  How- 
ever, Provost  Wrangel  as  well  as  some  of  the  elders  accom- 
panied me,  the  former  as  far  as  the  home  of  Pastor  Schlatter, 
where  we  were  hospitably  received  and   entertained   for  the 


EABLY  HISTOBY  OF  AMEBICAN  LUTHEBANISM.  87 

night."  (380.)  On  the  services  conducted  at  Barren  Hill  on 
Easter  Monday,  1762,  Muhlenberg  reports  as  follows:  "After 
my  sermon  Pastor  Schlatter  added  a  short  admonition,  im- 
pressing upon  them  what  they  had  already  heard."  (517.) 
"On  Monday,  May  25,  I  went  out  in  the  forenoon  to  visit  some 
English  friends.  As  I  happened  to  pass  by  the  English  High 
Church  at  eleven  o'clock,  I  was  called  into  the  manse,  where 
I  found  a  numerous  assembly  of  the  honorable  English  mis- 
sionaries, who  were  conducting  their  annual  meeting.  They 
took  me  to  church  with  them,  showed  me  unmerited  honor,  and 
permitted  me  to  attend  their  session  as  a  friend  and  wit- 
ness." (380.)  May  21,  1762,  Muhlenberg  noted  in  his  diary: 
"At  noon  I  was  with  Mr.  R.,  who  related  with  joy  how  he, 
Mr.  D.,  and  Provost  Wrangel,  together  with  the  new  Swedish 
pastor,  Mr.  Wicksel,  and  the  Reformed  pastor,  Schlatter,  had 
yesterday,  on  Ascension  Day,  attended  the  new  church,  where 
they  had  heard  two  splendid  and  edifying  sermons  in  German 
and  English  delivered  to  two  large  audiences."  (383.)  Octo- 
ber 16,  1763,  he  wrote:  "Pastor  Handschuh  was  called  upon 
to  bury  a  Reformed  woman  who  died  in  childbirth;  he  de- 
livered the  sermon  in  the  old  Reformed  church."  On  Octo- 
ber 18,  1763,  during  the  sessions  of  Synod,  and  at  its  request, 
Whitefield  preached  in  the  pulpit  of  Muhlenberg.  In  1767 
J.  S.  Gerock  dedicated  his  new  church  in  New  York,  "assisted 
by  different  High  German  and  English  Protestant  pastors 
and  teachers,"  H.  M.  Muhlenberg  and  Hartwick  also  preach- 
ing. (444.)  When  Muhlenberg  dedicated  his  new  Zion  Church 
in  Philadelphia,  on  June  25,  1769,  the  professors  of  the  Acad- 
emy as  well  as  the  Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian  pastors 
were  invited.  The  report  says:  "The  second  English  pastor, 
Mr.  Duchee,  opened  the  services  by  reading  the  English  prayers, 
the  Prorector  of  the  Academy  offered  an  appropriate  prayer, 
and  Commissioner  Peters  delivered  a  splendid  sermon  on  the 
song  of  the  angels,  Luke  2,  whereupon  Rector  Muhlenberg,  in 
the  name  of  the  corporation  and  congregation,  thanked  the 
honorable  assembly,  in  English,  for  their  favor  and  kindness 
in  honoring  this  newly  erected  church  and  conducting  a  ser- 
vice there."  May  27,  1770,  Whitefield,  upon  invitation,  also 
preached  in  the  new  church.  (518.)  Without  a  word  of  cen- 
sure on  the  part  of  his  father,  or  of  protest  on  the  part  of 


88  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Synod,  Peter  Muhlenberg,  in  1772,  at  London,  subscribed  to 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  and  received  Episcopal  ordination,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  perform  legal  marriage  ceremonies  within 
his  congregations  in  Virginia.  Invited  by  the  Presbyterian 
pastor,  W.  Tennent,  Muhlenberg,  Sr.,  preached  in  his  church  on 
two  occasions  while  at  Charleston,  in  1774.  (578.)  At  Sa- 
vannah he  preached  in  the  union  church  of  the  Reformed 
Pastor  Zuebli,  and  in  the  Lutheran  church  at  Savannah  he 
enjoyed  the  sermon  of  a  Methodist  pastor.  (518.)  At  the 
church  dedication  in  Pikestown,  in  1775,  he  preached  in  Ger- 
man, and  an  Episcopalian,  Mr.  Currie,  in  English,  etc. 

54.  Whitefield  in  Muhlenberg's  Pulpit.  —  "The  pastors 
of  the  first  period  of  the  Ministerium,"  says  Dr.  Jacobs,  "were 
on  friendly  relations  with  Whitefield.  Dr.  Wrangel  interested 
himself  in  securing  for  him  an  invitation  to  meet  with  the 
members  of  the  Ministerium  during  the  sessions  of  1763.  In 
urging  this  proposition,  Wrangel  did  not  forget  the  collections 
which  Whitefield  had  made  in  Europe  for  the  impoverished 
Salzburgers.  The  presence  of  a  man  who  had  pleaded  elo- 
quently in  English  pulpits  for  contributions  to  build  Lutheran 
churches  in  Georgia,  and  with  that  eminent  success  which  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  has  noted  in  a  well-known  passage  in  his  auto- 
biography, certainly  deserved  recognition,  even  apart  from 
Whitefield's  services  in  awakening  life  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  in  America.  He  was  present  at  the  examination  of 
the  children  of  St.  Michael's  Church  before  the  synod,  made 
a  fervent  prayer  and  an  edifying  address.  On  the  next  day  he 
bade  the  synod  farewell,  and  requested  the  prayers  of  its  mem- 
bers. The  next  year  he  was  in  attendance  at  the  funeral  of 
Pastor  Handschuh.  In  1770  (May  27)  he  preached  by  special 
invitation  in  Zion  Church."  (286.)  In  his  report,  dated  Octo- 
ber 15,  1763,  on  the  synod  of  the  same  year,  Muhlenberg  him- 
self says:  "It  was  also  considered,  whether  we  should  not  in- 
vite Mr.  Whitefield  and  the  two  well-disposed  preachers  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  for  Monday  and  Tuesday,  especially  to  the 
examination  of  the  children.  Among  other  reasons  Dr.  Wrangel 
mentioned  the  fact  that  Whitefield  had  assisted  our  poor  suffer- 
ing brethren  in  Georgia  [Salzburgers]  with  collections.  In 
the  evening  Dr.  Wrangel  took  me  to  Mr.  Whitefield,  and  in  the 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  89 

name  of  the  Ministerium  we  invited  him  together  with  the 
rector  of  the  High  Church,  who  was  present."  October  16, 
Muhlenberg  wrote :  "After  the  services  Dr.  Wrangel,  Pastor 
Handschuh,  and  three  trustees  went  to  Mr.  Whitefield  and  asked 
him  if  on  the  morrow  he  would  attend  our  examination  in  the 
church,  and  speak  a  word  of  admonition  to  the  children.  He 
answered :  Yes,  if  his  weakness  permitted,  and  such  were  God's 
gracious  will."  October  18,  Muhlenberg  wrote:  "Mr.  White- 
field  ascended  the  pulpit,  and  said  a  hearty  and  powerful 
prayer.  Hereupon  he  addressed  himself  to  the  children,  de- 
livering, with  tears  and  deep  emotion,  a  condescending  sermon 
about  pious  children  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  together 
with  some  modern  examples  which  he  had  himself  experienced, 
and  finally  enjoined  upon  parents  their  duties.  After  this  the 
children  were  examined  by  Dr.  Wrangel,  and  then,  in  German, 
by  me.  Whitefield,  however,  being  very  weak  in  body,  and  the 
church  being  very  crowded,  we  discontinued  and  closed  with 
a  piece  of  church  music.  The  pastors  and  other  delegates,  the 
elders  and  deacons  took  dinner  in  the  school,  the  old  Mr.  Ten- 
nent  [Episcopalian],  who  was  given  the  place  of  honor,  delight- 
ing us  with  edifying  conversation."  October  19,  Muhlenberg 
wrote:  "At  four  o'clock  Mr.  George  Whitefield  visited  our 
Ministerium  in  the  school,  bidding  us  an  affectionate  farewell, 
and  requesting  us  to  intercede  for  him  before  the  throne  of 
grace."  Dr.  Graebner  remarks :  "A  misstep  as  serious  as  this, 
admitting  an  errorist  like  Whitefield  to  the  pulpit  of  the  local 
pastor  and  synodical  president,  such  as  was  done  at  this  syn- 
odical  meeting,  had,  at  least,  not  been  made  before  the  time  of 
Wrangel."  ( 383  ff. )  Concerning  his  fellowship  with  Whitefield 
in  1770,  Muhlenberg  made  the  following  entries  in  his  journal: 
"Friday,  May  25.  .  .  .  Because  I  could  not  do  otherwise,  I  wrote 
a  few  lines  to  Rev.  Mr.  Whitefield,  stating  that  if  he  would 
preach  for  me  on  next  Sunday  night  in  Zion  Church,  it  would 
be  acceptable  to  me."  "Sunday,  May  27.  .  .  .  Early  in  the 
evening  Zion  Church  was  filled  with  people  of  all  sorts  of  re- 
ligion, both  German  and  English.  We  two  preachers  went  to 
Mr.  Whitefield's  lodging  and  took  him  with  us  to  the  church, 
which  was  so  crowded  that  we  had  to  take  him  in  through  the 
steeple-door.  .  .  .  He  complained  of  a  cold  contracted  at  the 
morning  service,  and  consequent  hoarseness,  but  preached  very 


90  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

acceptably  from  2  Chron.  7,  1  on  "The  Outer  and  the  Inner 
Glory  of  the  House  of  God.'  He  introduced  some  impressive  re- 
marks concerning  our  fathers  —  Francke  and  Ziegenhagen,  etc." 
(Jacobs,  287.)  At  the  First  Lutheran  Diet,  Dr.  C.  P.  Krauth 
explained:  "Whitefield  was  an  evangelist  of  forgotten  or 
ignored  doctrines  of  the  Gospel;  a  witness  excluded  from 
many  pulpits  of  his  own  church  because  of  his  earnestness  in 
preaching  the  truth;  in  some  sense  a  martyr.  This  invested 
him  with  interest  in  the  eyes  of  our  fathers,  and  his  love  to 
the  Lutheran  Church  and  his  services  to  it  made  him  very 
dear."   (287.) 

55.  Experiencing  the  Consequences.  —  From  what  has 
been  said  it  is  evident  that  Muhlenberg's  relations  with  the 
sects  was  not  without  reprehensible  unionism.  Even  where,  in 
such  fellowship,  syncretism  was  not  directly  practised,  the 
proper  confession  of  Lutheran  truth  was  omitted.  As  with  the 
Swedes  in  Delaware,  fraternal  intercourse  proceeded  on  the 
silent  understanding  that  the  sore  spot  of  doctrinal  differences 
must  be  carefully  avoided.  For  Lutherans,  however,  this  was 
tantamount  to  a  denial  of  the  truth.  Muhlenberg  set  an  ex- 
ample the  influence  of  which  was  all  the  more  pernicious  by 
reason  of  the  high  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  the  members 
of  Synod,  who  revered  him  as  a  father.  As  late  as  1866  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  defended  its  intercourse  with  the  Reformed 
Synod  "as  a  measure  introduced  by  the  fathers  in  the  time  of 
Muhlenberg  and  Schlatter."  And  the  unionistic  practises  in- 
dulged in  by  the  General  Synod  throughout  its  history  cannot 
but  be  viewed  as  the  fruits  of  the  tree  first  planted  by  the 
Halle  emissaries.  Nor  could  they  fail  to  see  the  abyss  into 
which  such  unionism  must  finally  lead,  as  it  was  apparent 
already  in  the  history  of  the  Swedes.  That  Muhlenberg  had 
a  presentiment  whither  things  were  drifting  appears  from  his 
warning  in  1783  to  J.  L.  Voigt  not  to  open  his  pulpit  to  Metho- 
dist preachers.  (516.)  Indeed,  Muhlenberg  himself  lived  to  see 
the  first  bitter  fruits  of  his  dalliance  with  the  sects.  Four 
months  before  his  end,  June  6,  1787,  Franklin  College,  at  Lan- 
caster, was  solemnly  opened  as  a  German  High  School  and 
a  union  theological  seminary  for  Lutherans,  Reformed,  and 
a  number  of  other  sects.     H.  E.  Muhlenberg  delivered  the  ser- 


EAELY  HISTOBY  OF  AMEBICAN  LUTHEEANISM.  91 

mon  at  the  opening  exercises,  which  were  attended  by  the  en- 
tire synod.  The  name  of  the  institution  was  chosen  in  view  of 
the  virtues  and  merits  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  had  con- 
tributed £200.  The  College  had  forty-five  trustees,  consisting 
of  15  Lutherans,  15  Reformed,  and  15  chosen  from  other  com- 
munions. A  director  was  to  be  chosen  alternately  from  the  Lu- 
theran and  from  the  Reformed  Church.  Among  the  first  trus- 
tees were  J.  H.  C.  Helmuth  and  other  Lutheran  pastors.  Two 
of  the  first  four  teachers  were  Lutherans:  Pastor  H.  E.  Muh- 
lenberg, the  first  director,  and  Pastor  F.  W.  Melsheimer.  (515.) 
Dr.  A.  Spaeth,  agreeing  with  W.  J.  Mann,  says:  "Sooner  or 
later  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  of  America  should  and  could 
unite  on  the  position  of  Muhlenberg."  (252.)  We  would  not 
detract  from  the  merit  of  Muhlenberg.  The  slogan  of  the 
American  Lutheran  Church,  however,  dare  never  be:  "Back 
to  Muhlenberg!"  "Back  to  Halle!"  but  "Back  to  Wittenberg!" 
"Back  to  Luther!  Back  to  Lutheran  sincerity,  determination, 
and  consistency  both  in  doctrine  and  practise!" 

TRAINING  OF  MINISTERS  AND  TEACHERS 
NEGLECTED. 

56.  Parish  Schools  Cultivated.  —  One  cannot  possibly 
say  too  much  in  praise  of  the  missionary  zeal  on  the  part  of 
Muhlenberg  and  his  associates  and  of  their  unceasing  efforts 
to  establish  new  mission-posts  and  organize  new  congregations, 
and  to  obtain  additional  laborers  from  Europe,  notably  from 
Halle.  In  a  large  measure  this  applies  also  to  their  labors  in 
the  interest  of  establishing  parochial  schools.  In  fact,  wherever 
we  read  of  early  Lutherans  in  America,  especially  German  Lu- 
therans, there  we  also  hear  the  cry  for  schools  and  school- 
teachers to  instruct  the  children.  Comparatively  weak  efforts 
to  establish  schools  for  their  children  were  made  by  the  Swedes 
in  Delaware.  At  Christina  a  teacher  was  employed  in  1699; 
in  Wicaco  Teacher  Hernboom  began  a  school  in  1713.  The 
minutes  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  of  1762  record:  "In  the 
Swedish  congregations  the  Swedish  schools  have  for  several 
generations  been  regrettably  neglected ;  Dr.  Wrangel,  however, 
has  started  an  English  school  in  one  of  his  congregations  in 
which  the  Lutheran  Catechism  is  read  in  an  English  trans- 


92  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

lation."  Acrelius,  who  had  been  provost  of  the  Swedes  in  Dela- 
ware, wrote  in  1759:  "Forty  years  back  our  people  scarcely 
knew  what  a  school  was.  The  first  Swedish  and  Holland 
settlers  were  a  poor,  weak,  and  ignorant  people,  who  brought 
up  their  children  in  the  same  ignorance."  The  result  was 
great  ignorance  among  the  Swedes.  Jacobs:  "There  seems  to 
have  been  an  entire  dearth  of  laymen  capable  of  intelligently 
participating  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  con- 
gregation until  we  come  to  Peter  Kock.  Eneberg  found  at 
Christina  that  'of  the  vestrymen  and  elders  of  the  parish  there 
was  scarcely  any  one  who  could  write  his  own  name.'  "  ( 104. ) 
The  Salzburgers  had  a  school  in  Ebenezer,  and  later  a  second 
school  in  the  country.  At  the  beginning  Bolzius  and  Gronau 
gave  daily  instruction  in  religion,  the  one  four,  the  other  three 
hours  daily.  In  1741  Ortmann  and  an  English  teacher  in- 
structed the  youth  at  Ebenezer.  The  Palatinates  in  New  York 
began  with  the  building,  not  only  of  a  church,  but  also  of 
a  school  in  1710,  the  very  year  in  which  they  had  settled  at 
West  Camp.  In  New  York  there  was  a  schoolhouse  as  well  as 
a  church,  and  a  "schoolkeeper"  (Schulhalter)  was  employed. 
When  the  teacher  disappeared,  the  schoolhouse  was  rented  out, 
but  Berkenmeyer  taught  the  children  in  his  home  for  five 
months  in  a  year,  three  times  a  week.  Also  in  North  Carolina, 
Virginia,  Tennessee,  etc.,  parish  schools  were  established,  and 
the  great  need  of  them  explained  to  and  urged  upon  the  people 
by  the  conferences  and  ministers.  In  Pennsylvania  there  were 
several  German  schools  even  before  the  arrival  of  Muhlenberg; 
as  a  rule,  however,  the  teachers  were  incompetent  or  immoral, 
or  both.  (247.)  When,  in  1734,  Daniel  Weisiger,  one  of  the 
representatives  of  the  congregations  at  Philadelphia,  New 
Hanover,  and  Providence,  made  his  appearance  in  Halle,  he 
asked  for  both  an  able  and  pious  preacher  and  a  schoolteacher. 
In  the  beginning  Muhlenberg  himself  took  charge  of  the  school. 
In  January,  1743,  he  wrote:  "Because  there  is  a  great 
ignorance  among  the  youth  of  this  land  and  good  school- 
teachers are  so  very  rare,  I  shall  be  compelled  to  take  hold 
of  the  work  myself.  Those  who  possibly  could  teach  the  youth 
to  read  are  lazy  and  drunken,  compile  a  sermon  from  all  man- 
ner of  books,  run  about,  preach,  and  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper  for  hard  cash.    Miserable  and  disgusting,  indeed!     I  an- 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  93 

nounced  to  the  people  [at  Providence]  to  send  first  their  oldest 
children  for  instruction,  as  I  intended  to  remain  with  the  con- 
gregation eight  days  at  a  time.  On  Monday  some  of  the  parents 
brought  their  children.  It  certainly  looks  depressing  when  chil- 
dren of  seventeen,  eighteen,  nineteen,  twenty  years  come  with 
the  Abe-Book.  Yet  I  am  delighted  that  they  are  possessed  of 
so  great  a  desire  to  learn  something,"  etc.  "In  Providence," 
Muhlenberg  wrote  later  on,  "I  have  a  splendid  young  man,  who 
keeps  school  in  winter,  and  in  summer  earns  his  living  by 
doing  manual  labor."  In  1745  J.  N.  Kurtz  and  J.  H.  Schaum 
were  sent  from  Halle  to  take  charge  of  the  youth.  One  of  the 
chief  questions  to  engage  the  attention  of  the  first  convention 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  in  1748,  was:  "What  is  the  con- 
dition of  the  parish  schools?"  Brunnholtz  reported:  In  his 
home  at  Philadelphia,  Schaum,  whom  he  supported,  had  been 
keeping  school  for  three  and  a  half  years;  since  Easter  there 
had  been  no  school,  as  Schaum  was  needed  at  another  place; 
however,  before  winter  would  set  in,  he  and  his  elders  would 
do  their  best  in  this  matter.  Germantown,  continued  Brunn- 
holtz, had  two  teachers,  Doeling,  a  former  Moravian,  being  one 
of  them,  whose  schools  were  attended  by  many  children,  some 
of  them  non-Lutherans.  Another  school  near  Germantown 
with  twenty  children  had  been  closed  for  lack  of  a  teacher. 
Muhlenberg  stated:  In  Providence  there  had  been  a  small 
school  in  the  past  year.  New  Hanover  had  a  fair  school,  Jacob 
Loeser  being  teacher.  Though  a  teacher  could  be  had  for  the 
filials  Saccum  and  Upper  Milford,  there  were  no  schools  there. 
When  the  elders  hereupon  explained  that  the  distances  were 
too  great,  Synod  advised  to  change  off  monthly  with  the 
teacher,  and  demanded  an  answer  in  this  matter  in  the  near 
future.  Kurtz  promised  to  begin  a  school  at  Tulpehocken  in 
winter.  Handschuh  reported:  In  Lancaster  the  school  was 
flourishing;  Teacher  Schmidt  and  his  assistant  Vigera  had  in- 
structed 70  children.  At  the  meeting  of  Synod  in  1753  the 
pastors  complained:  "The  schools  within  our  congregations  are 
in  a  very  poor  state,  since  able  and  faithful  teachers  are  rare, 
salaries  utterly  insufficient,  the  members  too  widely  scattered 
and  in  most  cases  poor,  roads  too  bad  in  winter,  and  the  chil- 
dren too  urgently  needed  on  the  farms  in  summer."  (G.,  496.) 
According  to  the  report  of  the  Synod  held  in  1762  there  were 


94  EARLY  HISTORY  OP  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

parochial  schools  in  New  Providence,  one  main  school  and  sev- 
eral smaller  ones;  in  New  Hanover;  in  Philadelphia,  where 
a  public  examination  during  the  sessions  of  Synod  exhibited 
the  efficiency  of  the  school;  in  Vincent  Township,  a  school 
with  a  good  teacher  and  60  children;  in  Reading,  a  school 
with  more  than  80  children;  in  Tulpehocken,  a  school  of 
40  children;  in  Heidelberg,  a  school  of  30  children;  in  North- 
keel,  30  children,  taught  by  Pastor  Kurtz;  in.  Lancaster, 
a  school  of  60  children  in  summer  and  90  in  winter,  etc.  (495.) 

57.  Dearth  of  Pastors  and  Schoolteachers.  —  From  the 
very  beginning  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  to  the  spread  and 
healthy  growth  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  was  the 
dearth  of  well-trained,  able,  and  truly  Lutheran  pastors  and 
schoolteachers.  And  the  greatest  of  all  mistakes  of  the  early 
builders  of  the  American  Zion  was  the  failure  to  provide  for 
the  crying  need  of  laborers  by  the  only  proper  and  effectual 
means  —  the  establishment  of  American  seminaries  for  the 
training  of  truly  Lutheran  pastors  and  teachers  qualified  to 
serve  in  American  surroundings.  The  growing  indifferentism 
and  deterioration  of  the  Lutheran  ministry  as  well  as  of  the 
Lutheran  congregations  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  this 
neglect,  which  resulted  in  an  inadequate  service,  rendered,  to 
a  large  extent,  by  incompetent  or  heterodox  ministers. 
Dr.  Mann  was  right  when  he  maintained  in  his  Plea  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  1856,  that  the  doctrinal  aberrations  of 
the  Definite  Platform  theologians  were  due,  in  part,  to  the  fact 
that  S.  S.  Schmucker  and  other  ministers  had  received  their 
theological  education  at  Princeton  and  other  non-Lutheran 
schools.  The  constantly  increasing  need,  coupled  with  the  in- 
sufficient preparation  of  the  men  willing  to  serve,  led  to  the 
pernicious  system  of  licensing,  which  for  many  decades  be- 
came a  permanent  institution  in  Pennsylvania  and  other  States. 
In  1857  the  General  Synod  adopted  the  following  report:  "The 
committee  on  the  Licensure  System  respectfully  report  that  the 
action  of  this  body  requesting  the  several  District  Synods  to 
take  into  consideration  and  report  their  judgment  on  the  pro- 
posed alteration  or  abolition  of  our  Licensure  System  has  been 
responded  to  by  fifteen  synods.  Out  of  this  number  all  the 
synods,  excepting  three,  have  decided  against  a  change.    Your 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  05 

committee  have  to  report  the  judgment  of  the  Church  to  be 
decidedly  against  any  change  of  our  long-established  regu- 
lations on  this  subject,  and  therefore  deem  it  unnecessary  to 
enter  on  the  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  subject,  in  this  re- 
port, and  propose  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 
Kesolved,  That  the  great  majority  of  our  Synods  having  ex- 
pressed their  judgment  against  any  change  in  our  Licensure 
System,  your  committee  be  released  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject."  (20.)  The  great  dearth  of  minis- 
ters accounted  for  this  action.  Even  before  1727  there  were 
in  Pennsylvania  more  than  50,000  Germans.  In  1751  Benja- 
min Franklin  expressed  his  apprehension  that  "the  Palatine 
boors"  would  Germanize  Pennsylvania.  In  1749  more  than 
12,000  German  emigrants  arrived.  In  1750  the  Germans  in 
Pennsylvania  numbered  about  80,000,  almost  one-half  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  State.  And  more  than  one-half  of  these 
were  considered  Lutherans.  In  1811,  however,  when  this 
number  had  greatly  increased,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  re- 
ported only  64  ministers,  of  whom  34  were  ordained,  26  were 
licensed  to  preach,  and  4  were  catechists.  The  number  of 
ministers  sent  from  Germany  had  been  augmented  by  such  as 
had  been  tutored  by  pastors  in  America.  Chr.  Streit  and  Peter 
Muhlenberg,  for  example,  were  instructed  by  Provost  Wrangel 
and  Muhlenberg,  Sr.  Another  pupil  of  Muhlenberg  was  Jacob 
van  Buskirk.  H.  Moeller,  D.  Lehman,  and  others  had  studied 
under  J.  C.  Kunze.  Jacob  Goering,  J.  Bachman,  C.  F.  L.  En- 
dress,  J.  G.  Schmucker,  Miller,  and  Baetis  were  pupils  of  J.  H. 
Ch.  Helmuth.  H.  A.  Muhlenberg,  who  subsequently  became 
prominent  in  politics,  and  B.  Keller  were  educated  in  Franklin 
College.  Later  on  some  attended  Princeton  and  other  Reformed 
schools  to  prepare  themselves  for  the  Lutheran  ministry!  To 
make  matters  worse,  the  ministers  who,  toward  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  came  from  Germany  were  no  longer  adapted 
for  their  surroundings,  which  were  rapidly  becoming  English. 
Besides,  Halle  and  the  other  German  universities  had  grown 
rationalistic.  According  to  the  Report  of  the  General  Synod 
in  1823  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  numbered  900  churches 
with  only  175  ministers.  (9.)  The  same  report  states:  "The 
ancient  and  venerable  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  is  rapidly  in- 
creasing both  in  members  and  in  ministers,  and  we  trust  that 


96  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

much  good  is  doing  in  the  name  of  our  blessed  Savior  Jesus. 
From  the  minutes  of  the  session  of  the  present  year,  which 
was  held  at  Lebanon,  it  appears  that  the  body  consists  of 
74  ministers,  who  have  the  pastoral  charge  of  upwards  of 
278  churches;  that  between  the  session  of  1822  and  1823  they 
admitted  to  membership  by  baptism  6,445,  admitted  to  sacra- 
mental communion  by  confirmation  2,750,  that  the  whole  num- 
ber of  communicants  is  24,794,  and  that  there  are  under  the 
superintendence  of  the  different  churches  208  congregational 
schools."  (11.)  In  1843,  according  to  the  Lutheran  Almanac 
for  that  year,  the  General  Synod  numbered  424  ordained  and 
licensed  pastors  and  1,374  congregations  with  146,303  com- 
municants. This  averaged  three  congregations  for  every  pastor, 
some  serving  as  many  as  six,  eight,  or  even  twelve,  giving  the 
majority  of  the  congregations  one  service  every  four  weeks, 
and  to  many  only  one  service  every  eight  weeks.  (Kirchl.  Mitt. 
1843,  No.  11.)  In  1853  about  9,000  Lutheran  congregations  in 
the  United  States  were  served  by  only  900  pastors.  {Luthe- 
raner,  10,  31.)  Thus,  as  the  years  rolled  on,  the  question  be- 
came increasingly  pressing:  "Where  shall  we  find  pastors  for 
our  children?"  Yet,  while  the  Lutheran  ministers,  as  a  rule, 
were  most  zealous  and  self-sacrificing  in  their  labors  to  serve 
and  gather  the  scattered  Lutherans,  organize  congregations,  and 
establish  parochial  schools,  the  early  history  of  American  Lu- 
theranism  does  not  record  a  single  determined  effort  anywhere 
to  provide  in  a  systematic  way  for  the  training  of  preachers 
and  teachers,  such  as  were  required  by  American  conditions 
and  surroundings.  We  hear  of  an  orphan  home  founded  by 
the  Salzburgers  in  1737  with  three  boys  and  eight  girls,  but 
nowhere  of  a  seminary  turning  out  preachers  and  teachers  for 
the  maintenance  and  upbuilding  of  the  Church.  It  was  in  1864, 
more  than  120  years  after  the  first  appearance  of  Muhlenberg 
in  Pennsylvania,  that  the  "Mother  Synod"  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  founded  a  seminary  in  Philadelphia. 

58.  Hopeless  Situation.  —  Several  years  after  his  arrival 
in  America,  Muhlenberg  realized  the  need  and  conceived  the 
thought  of  founding  an  orphan  asylum  with  a  preachers'  semi- 
nary in  connection;  and  in  1748  he  had  acquired  the  ground 
for  this  purpose.    In  his  letters  to  Halle  he  repeatedly  declared 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  97 

that  it  would  be  impossible  to  supply  "the  almost  innumerable 
multitude  of  German  Lutherans"  with  pastors  for  any  length 
of  time  without  a  seminary  in  America.  In  one  of  these  letters 
he  says:  "An  institution  of  this  kind  does  not  appear  to  be 
impossible.  And  it  seems  to  be  necessary,  because,  as  the  past 
experience  has  taught  us,  the  calling  of  well-tried  and  able 
preachers  from  Germany,  though  indeed  of  especial  advantage, 
and  needed  also  in  the  future,  at  least  for  a  considerable  time, 
is  connected  with  so  many  difficulties  and  such  great  expense 
that  it  will  be  impossible  to  send  over  as  many  from  Germany 
as  will  be  required  in  order  to  provide  sufficiently  for  all  con- 
gregations." (504.)  In  1769  Muhlenberg  broached  the  matter 
to  the  convention  of  the  Ministerium,  and  Synod  repeatedly 
considered  the  question.  But  nothing  materialized.  Indeed, 
J.  C.  Kunze,  who  later  became  Muhlenberg's  son-in-law,  finally 
did  succeed  in  opening  a  preparatory  school;  lack  of  funds, 
however,  compelled  him  to  close  it  during  the  Revolutionary 
War.  Kunze,  Helmuth,  and  J.  F.  Schmidt  now  pinned  their 
hopes  to  the  "German  Institute"  of  the  Pennsylvania  Uni- 
versity, whose  professors  were  Lutherans  from  1779  to  1822. 
Helmuth  instructed  every  day  from  eight  to  twelve  and  from 
two  to  five  o'clock.  But  the  "German  Institute"  did  not  turn 
out  any  Lutheran  pastors,  as  the  curriculum  contained  no 
course  in  theology.  Kunze  writes:  "It  is  true,  I  was  pro- 
fessor of  Oriental  languages  in  Philadelphia.  However,  I  had 
but  six  scholars,  and  I  doubt  if  one  of  them  will  study  theology. 
And  who  would  instruct  them,  in  case  they  should  desire  to 
study  theology?  We  did  not  have  time  to  devote  a  single  hour 
to  this  subject  in  Philadelphia."  In  1785  Helmuth  and  Schmidt 
wrote:  "There  is  nothing  we  pastors  desire  more  than  a  Ger- 
man educational  institution,  where  young  men  could  be  pre- 
pared directly  for  the  service  of  the  Church.  To  be  sure,  we 
have  part  in  the  university  located  here,  and  also  make  use 
of  it.  But  languages  and  philosophy  only  are  taught  here, 
from  which  our  churches  and  schools  derive  no  benefit."  The 
hopelessness  of  the  situation  is  further  revealed  by  the  follow- 
ing letter  which  Helmuth  addressed  to  the  synod  assembled  in 
Lancaster,  Pa.,  1784:  "Brethren,  we  are  living  in  a  sad  time. 
My  heart  weeps  over  the  awful  decay  of  Christendom.    I  readily 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  7 


98  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

acknowledge  my  share  of  the  guilt  that  God  seems  to  hide  His 
countenance  from  us,  permitting  the  doors  to  stand  wide  open, 
for  the  spirit  of  lies  [rationalism]  to  enter  and  destroy  the  vine- 
yard of  the  Lord.  You  will  learn  from  the  report  from  Halle 
how  the  swine  are  uprooting  the  garden  of  Christ  in  Ger- 
many. .  .  .  Another  thing,  dearest  brethren,  how  shall  we  in 
the  future  supply  our  congregations  with  pastors?  Where 
shall  we  find  ministers  to  meet  our  need,  which  will  increase 
from  time  to  time?  From  Germany?  Possibly  a  secret  Arian, 
Socinian,  or  Deist?  For  over  there  everything  is  full  of  this 
vermin.  God  forbid!  Under  present  circumstances,  no  one 
from  Germany !  We  ourselves  must  put  our  hands  to  the  plow. 
God  will  call  us  to  account  for  it,  and  will  let  our  children 
suffer  for  it,  if  we  do  not  wake  up,  and  hazard  something  for 
the  weal  of  immortal  souls."  —  And  how  did  they  now  seek  to 
provide  help?  Franklin  College  was  founded  in  conjunction 
with  the  German  Reformed  and  other  sects!  Helmuth  and 
other  Lutheran  pastors  were  among  the  trustees  of  the  insti- 
tution. In  an  appeal  to  the  Lutheran  congregations  they  say: 
"Where  will  you  at  last  find  pastors  and  teachers  if  you  do 
not  send  your  children  to  college?  .  .  .  Think  you  that  your 
churches  and  schools  can  exist  without  them?  Either  your 
children  will  have  to  content  themselves  with  the  poorest  kind 
of  men,  or  else  surrender  language  and  religion,  for  which  you 
have  laid  the  foundation,  thus  loading  a  great  guilt  upon  your- 
selves. Dear  friends,  German  church-life  can  impossibly  con- 
tinue to  exist  as  it  has  hitherto  existed  in  many  places.  In 
a  few  years  the  churches  you  already  have  will  be  deserted. 
And  what  will  then  become  of  the  increased  number  of  Ger- 
mans dwelling  in  your  midst?  Are  there  not  already  a  great 
number  of  localities  where  the  inhabitants  hear  no  sermon  for 
six  to  eight  weeks,  and  where  the  young  grow  up  like  the 
savages?"  (515.  530.)  The  Synod  of  1818  also  staked  its  hopes 
on  Franklin  College,  which,  however,  was  eking  out  a  pitiable 
existence,  and  finally  became  the  exclusive  property  of  the  Re- 
formed. The  dire  need  was  apparent  to  all;  the  true  way  out 
of  the  difficulty,  however,  no  one  saw  nor  wanted  to  see.  And 
the  reason?  Avarice  on  the  part  of  the  congregations,  and 
a  lack  of  initiative  and  Lutheran  earnestness  and  determination 
on  the  part  of  the  pastors.    Nor  did  the  seminaries  founded  in 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  99 

the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  (Hartwick  Seminary, 
established  in  1S15;  Gettysburg  Seminary,  in  1825;  and  the 
seminary  of  the  South  Carolina  Synod,  in  1829,  at  Lexington) 
meet  the  needs  of  the  Church,  either  as  to  the  quantity  or  the 
quality  of  the  candidates  required  for  the  Lutheran  ministry. 
In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  General  Synod,  assembled  1827  at 
Gettysburg,  Dr.  Hazelius  wrote:  "Our  [Hartwick]  Seminary 
has  been  established  since  the  year  1815;  during  which  time 
11  young  men  have  received  their  theological  education  here, 
10  of  whom  are  now  actively  engaged  as  laborers  in  the  vine- 
yard of  our  Lord;  but  one  is  prevented  by  disease  from  par- 
ticipating in  the  labors  of  his  brethren."  (20.)  All  told, 
10  preachers  produced  by  Lutheran  seminaries  in  the  United 
States  till  1827 !  Besides,  in  reality  these  seminaries  were  not 
Lutheran,  but  unionistic  and,  in  a  degree,  Reformed  schools. 

DETERIORATION  OF  MOTHER  SYNOD. 

59.  Descent  Increasingly  Swift.  —  The  Lutheran  Church 
has  always  held  that,  as  faith  cannot  and  must  not  be  coerced, 
the  broadest  tolerance  as  to  matters  of  conscience  and  religion 
should  govern  the  policy  of  the  State  everywhere.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Lutheran  Church  maintains  that,  as  truth  is  abso- 
lutely intolerant  of  error,  and  error  is  the  direct  denial  of  truth, 
the  Christian  Church  dare  not  in  any  shape  or  manner  give 
recognition  to  false  teaching,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  bound 
always  to  reject  it  and  to  confess  God's  truth  alone.  Indiffer- 
entism  as  to  false  doctrine  and  practise  has  ever  proved  to  be 
the  most  deadly  foe  of  true  Lutheranism,  Avhich,  essentially,  is 
but  another  name  for  consistent  Christianity.  Lutheranism 
and  doctrinal  indifferentism  are  just  as  destructive  mutually 
as  are  truth  and  falsehood.  Also  the  history  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  offers  ample  proof  of  this  law.  In  the  days  of 
Muhlenberg,  Lutherans  began  to  doubt  that  their  doctrinal 
position,  as  presented  in  the  Lutheran  Symbols,  alone  is  of 
divine  right  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  alone  in  complete 
keeping  with  the  Scriptures.  Then  they  began  to  defend  them- 
selves as  also  being  in  the  right  and  standing  for  truth;  then, 
to  apologize  for  their  presence  in  America;  then,  to  be 
ashamed  of  themselves  and  publicly  to   deny  the  distinctive 


100  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

tenets  of  Lutheranism ;  and,  finally,  to  oppose  its  doctrines, 
champion  their  counterpart,  and  practically  embrace  sectari- 
anism. Muhlenberg  had  lived  to  see  the  beginning  of  the  end 
of  true  Lutheranism  when  Franklin  College  was  opened.  The 
descent  was  increasingly  swift.  In  1792  the  confession  of 
the  Lutheran  Symbols  was  omitted  in  the  new  constitution 
of  the  Ministerium.  And  when,  under  the  influence  of  Quit- 
man, the  New  York  Ministerium  became  rationalistic,  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  made  no  protest,  administered  no  rebuke,  and 
did  not  sever  its  fraternal  relations  with  it.  Moreover,  in 
a  measure,  they  opened  their  own  doors  to  Rationalism;  the 
German  language  was  regarded  as  being  of  greater  import  than 
faithful  adherence  to  the  Lutheran  Confessions;  and  refuge 
against  the  inroads  of  Rationalism  and  the  English  language 
was  sought  in  a  union  with  the  German  Reformed  and  the 
German  Moravians.  The  utter  degeneration  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Synod  appears  from  the  new  Agenda,  concerning  which 
Synod  resolved  in  1818  that  it  be  introduced  in  all  German 
congregations  of  the  Ministerium.  In  this  Book  there  were 
embodied  also  forms  designed  to  satisfy  the  Rationalists.  Two 
of  the  forms  for  administering  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  con- 
tained no  confession  of  faith.  The  confession  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  was  stricken  from  the  form  for  Confirmation.  In  two 
of  the  forms  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
Union  formula  of  distribution  was  employed,  viz.,  "Jesus  says: 
Take  and  eat  —  Jesus  says :  Take  and  drink  ye  all  of  it,"  etc. 
The  second  form  contained  the  following  general  invitation: 
"In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  and  Master,  I  say  to  all 
who  acknowledge  Him  as  their  Savior,  and  are  determined  to 
be  His  faithful  followers:  You  are  welcome  at  this  Feast  of 
Love."  (669.)  The  second  formula  for  burials  had  a  rational- 
istic tang.  And  the  formulas  of  ordination  and  licensure  no 
longer  demanded  adherence  to  the  Lutheran  Confessions.  (669.) 

60.  Intrenching  behind  the  German  Language.  —  The 
Christian  Church,  hence  also  the  Lutheran  Church,  views  every 
language,  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin,  as  well  as  German  and 
English,  not  as  an  end,  but  always  as  a  means  only  toward 
furthering  her  real  end,  the  regeneration  and  salvation  of  souls. 
According  to  Loehe's  Kirchliche  Mitteilungen  of  1845,  No.  5, 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  101 

a  German  emigrant  wrote  shortly  after  his  arrival  in  America : 
"I  cannot  sufficiently  thank  God  for  the  grace  bestowed  upon 
me ;  for  when  I  for  the  first  time  heard  the  language  of  Canaan 
[English],  the  language  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  I  was  imme- 
diately and  deeply  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  and  was  caught 
like  tinder."  This  was  certainly  not  the  attitude  of  the  Ger- 
man Lutheran  ministers  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  some  of 
whom,  going  to  the  other  extreme,  were  in  danger  of  view- 
ing the  English,  as  compared  with  the  German,  as  impreg- 
nated with  the  spirit  of  rationalism  and  infidelity.  Riding, 
as  it  were,  on  the  language,  rationalism  had  made  its  pub- 
lic entry  into  the  New  York  Ministerium.  The  real  cause, 
however,  was  not  the  language,  but  the  indifferentism  and 
unionism  prevailing  within  this  body,  which  long  ago  had 
paved  the  way  for,  indeed,  had  itself  bred,  religious  unbelief. 
However,  mistaking  what  was  merely  accidental  and  a  con- 
comitant for  the  chief  and  real  cause  of  the  calamity  in  the 
New  York  Ministerium,  prominent  German  ministers  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  in  order  to  guard  against  a  similar  turn 
of  events  in  their  own  midst,  frantically  opposed  the  use  of  the 
English  language  in  the  Synod  and  her  congregations,  and 
placed  such  emphasis  on  the  German  as  made  it  an  end  per  se 
peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  Church  rather  than  a  means  employed 
wherever  and  whenever  the  conditions  call  for  it  in  order  to 
attain  her  real  and  supreme  object  —  the  saving  of  souls.  Men 
like  J.  H.  C.  Helmuth  and  J.  F.  Schmidt,  in  a  way,  identified 
English  and  Rationalism,  German  and  Lutheranism  (that  is 
to  say,  unionistic  Evangelicalism).  Lamenting  the  inroads 
that  Rationalism  was  making  also  in  Lutheran  congregations, 
they  wrote:  "But  now  the  Protestant  churches  are  threatened 
by  a  terrible  storm,  which  is  not  the  mere  consequence  of  the 
natural  course  of  things,  but  a  sign  of  this  time,  and  it  will 
soon  despoil  them  of  the  treasures  of  their  Church  together 
with  all  their  happiness,  unless  teachers  and  parents  will 
counteract  it  with  united  strength.  Almost  universally,  es- 
pecially in  the  cities  and  at  the  boundaries,  they  are  beginning 
to  educate  the  children  exclusively  in  the  English  language, 
and,  in  a  manner  for  which  they  will  not  be  able  to  answer, 
to  neglect  them  as  regards  the  German  services.  This  is  the 
consequence  of  the  indifference  and  the  disregard  of  sound  doc- 


102  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

trine  which,  in  the  present  hour  of  great  temptation,  is  spread- 
ing over  the  face  of  the  earth."  But  instead  of  stemming  the 
tide  of  Rationalism  by  returning  to  Lutheran  faithfulness,  they 
ignored  the  Lutheran  Confessions  and  intrenched  themselves 
behind  the  German  language  and  the  "brethren"  in  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  and  German  Moravian  churches.  The  general 
church-prayer  of  the  Agenda  of  1786,  universally  introduced  in 
the  congregations  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  contained  the 
passage:  "And  since  it  has  pleased  Thee  [God]  to  transform 
this  State  [Pennsylvania]  into  a  blooming  garden,  the  deserts 
into  delightful  meadows,  grant  that  we  may  not  forget  our 
nation,  but  strive  to  have  our  dear  youth  educated  in  such 
a  manner  that  German  churches  and  schools  may  not  only  be 
maintained,  but  brought  to  a  flourishing  condition,  ever  in- 
creasing." (494.)  In  1812  the  Evangelisches  Magazin  appeared 
"under  the  auspices  of  the  German  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Synod,"  Pastors  Helmuth  and  Schmidt  being  the  editors.  Its 
avowed  purpose,  however,  was  not  to  represent  Lutheranism, 
but  specifically  to  bolster  up  the  cause  of  the  German  and  to 
oppose  the  introduction  of  the  English  language.  The  "Pro- 
posal to  Synod"  concerning  the  new  German  paper  states: 
"1.  We  want  to  aid  the  German  language  as  much  as  we  can, 
because  we  are  convinced  that,  with  her  language,  our  Church 
will  lose  unspeakably  much,  and,  finally,  for  the  most  part, 
even  her  very  existence  under  her  [Lutheran]  name.  2.  We 
know  the  days  of  the  great  apostasy  in  Europe.  .  .  .  Also  this 
devouring  monster  could  be  counteracted  by  a  well-arranged 
Evangelisches  Magazin."  (544.)  In  1813  the  Magazin  con- 
tained a  series  of  articles  urging  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans 
to  stand  together  against  all  attempts  at  introducing  English. 
The  English  language,  it  is  said,  is  too  poor  to  furnish  an 
adequate  translation  of  the  German  prayers  and  hymns  and 
books  of  devotion.  English  congregations  could  not  remain 
either  Lutheran  or  Reformed,  because  "our  religious  writings 
are  all  German."  Revealing  his  Utopian  dreams,  the  writer 
continues:  "What  would  Philadelphia  be  in  forty  years  if  the 
Germans  there  were  to  remain  German,  and  retain  their  lan- 
guage and  customs?  It  would  not  be  forty  years  until  Phila- 
delphia would  be  a  German  city,  just  as  York  and  Lancaster 
are  German  counties.  .  .  .    What  would  be  the  result  through- 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  103 

out  Pennsylvania  and  Northern  Maryland  in  forty  or  fifty 
years?  An  entirely  German  State,  where,  as  formerly  in  Ger- 
mantown,  the  beautiful  German  language  would  be  used  in  the 
legislative  halls  and  the  courts  of  justice."  (Jacobs,  330.)  In 
1805  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  resolved  that  "this  Ministerium 
must  remain  a  German-speaking  body"  —  a  resolution  which, 
especially  in  Philadelphia,  merely  served  to  increase  the  humili- 
ating and  damaging  language-strife  which  had  begun  several 
decades  before. 

UNIONISM  IN  THE  ASCENDENCY. 

61.  Seeking  Befuge  -with  the  Reformed.  —  In  their 
struggle  against  Rationalism  and  the  English  language  the 
German  Lutherans  of  Pennsylvania  sought  help  in  an  alliance 
with  the  German  Reformed  and  the  Moravians.  Fellowship 
between  them  became  increasingly  intimate.  "Luther  and 
Zwingli,"  they  boasted  harmoniously,  "opened  the  eyes  of  the 
world!"  "After  all,"  they  kept  on  saying,  "there  is  but  one 
faith,  one  Baptism,  one  Supper,  no  matter  how  much  the  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  views  on  it  may  be  at  variance."  (539.) 
One  of  the  objects  of  the  German  Evangelical  Magazine  evi- 
dently was  to  bring  about  a  more  intimate  union  between  all 
German  Evangelical  bodies.  For  this  reason  it  was  not  called 
"Lutheran,"  but  "Evangelical."  The  preface  to  the  first  volume 
declared:  "Our  undertaking  would  be  greatly  furthered  if  the 
brethren  of  other  communions  would  beautify  it  with  their 
pious  contributions,  and  also  solicit  subscriptions.  The 
brethren  of  the  Moravian  Unity  have  expressed  their  satis- 
faction with  this  imperfect  work,  and  assured  us  of  their  abid- 
ing love  in  this  point."  (544.)  In  view  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Reformation  Jubilee,  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  at 
York,  June  2,  1817,  resolved  that  the  German  Reformed,  Mora- 
vian, Episcopal,  and  Presbyterian  churches  be  invited  by  our 
President  to  take  part  with  us  in  the  festival  of  the  Refor- 
mation. In  the  following  year  the  unionistic  and  rationalistic 
Agenda  characterized  above  was  adopted  by  the  Ministerium. 
A  committee  was  also  appointed  to  confer  with  the  German 
Reformed,  and  to  devise  plans  for  utilizing  Franklin  College 
as  a  theological  seminary,  in  order  to  prepare  ministers  for 
both  denominations.    In  1819,  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  Synod  again 


104  EAELY  HISTOEY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEBANISM. 

considered  the  proposition  of  founding  a  joint  seminary  at  Lan- 
caster, and  appropriated  the  sum  of  $100  for  this  purpose  on 
condition  that  the  Reformed  Synod  set  aside  an  equal  amount. 
A  committee  was  also  appointed  to  confer  with  a  similar  com- 
mittee of  the  Reformed,  and  to  draw  up  the  necessary  plans 
for  the  seminary.  During  this  time,  especially  in  the  period  of 
1817  to  1825,  prominent  men  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  con- 
sidered and  advocated  plans  for  an  organic  "general  union  of 
our  Church  in  this  country  with  the  Evangelical  Reformed 
Church."  (685.)  The  Pennsylvania  minutes  of  1822  contain 
a  notice  according  to  which  Endress  and  W.  A.  Muhlenberg 
were  among  the  chief  advocates  of  this  movement.  Many,  es- 
pecially in  the  Pennsylvania  and  North  Carolina  synods,  re- 
garded and  zealously  urged  the  union  of  all  Lutheran  synods 
in  a  General  Synod  as  a  step  in  this  direction,  viz.,  union  with 
the  Reformed.  Graebner  says:  "When  all  the  Lutherans  had 
been  organized  into  one  general  body,  and  had  grown  accus- 
tomed to  marching  together,  one  might  also  hope  to  experience 
that  when  the  command  for  the  greater  union  would  be  given, 
the  entire  Lutheran  people,  now  freed  from  Lutheranism,  would 
march  in  stately  procession  to  the  goal  of  Schober's  Morning 
Star  [union  of  all  Evangelical  churches].  This  was  evidently 
the  policy  and  ulterior  object  when,  at  Harrisburg,  1818,  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  resolved  that  'the  officers  of  Synod  be 
a  standing  correspondence  committee  to  bring  about,  if  possible, 
a  union  with  the  other  Lutheran  synods.'"  (685.)  Viewed  in 
its  historical  context  (the  favorable  deliberations  and  resolu- 
tions on  the  union  seminary,  the  union  hymn-book,  etc.),  this 
resolution  admits  of  no  other  interpretation.  When,  therefore, 
the  organization  of  the  General  Synod  seemed,  in  the  opinion 
of  many,  to  interfere  with  and  threaten  the  projected  union 
with  the  Reformed,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  promptly  with- 
drew from  this  body,  in  1823.  Says  Jacobs:  "The  form  of  the 
opposition  [to  the  General  Synod]  was  that  the  General  Synod 
interfered  with  the  plans  that  had  been  projected  for  a  closer 
union  with  the  Reformed,  and  the  establishment  of  a  Lutheran- 
Reformed  theological  seminary.  Congregations  in  Lehigh 
County  petitioned  the  synod,  for  this  reason,  to  'return  to  the 
old  order  of  things';  and  the  synod,  in  the  spirit  of  charity  [?] 
toward  its  congregations,  in  order  that  nothing  might  inter- 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  105 

rupt  the  mutual  fraternal  love  that  subsisted  between  the 
brethren,  consented,  by  a  vote  of  seventy-two  to  nine,  to  desert 
the  child  which  it  had  brought  into  being."   (361.) 

62.  Union  Reformation  Jubilee  of  1817. —  At  York, 
June  2,  1817,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  resolved  to  celebrate  the 
tercentenary  of  the  Reformation  together  with  the  Reformed, 
the  Episcopalians,  etc.  Invitations  were  extended  accordingly. 
In  his  answer  of  October  14,  1817,  Bishop  William  White  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  wrote  to  Pastor  Lochman,  expressing  his 
delight  at  the  prospect  of  taking  part  in  the  prospective  cele- 
bration. He  said:  "I  received  the  letter  with  which  you 
honored  me,  dated  July  23,  1817.  In  answer  I  take  occasion 
to  inform  you  that  it  will  give  me  great  satisfaction  to  join 
with  the  reverend  ministers  and  with  the  whole  body  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  in  this  city,  on  the  day  appointed,  in  re- 
turning thanks  to  Almighty  God  for  the  beginning  of  the 
blessed  Reformation  in  the  three-hundredth  year  preceding, 
and  in  raising  up  for  that  purpose  the  great  and  good  man 
who  has  transmitted  to  your  Church  his  name,  and  whose 
praise  is  in  all  the  churches  of  the  Reformation.  This  occasion 
must,  of  course,  be  the  more  welcome  to  me  on  account  of  the 
agreement  in  doctrine  which  has  always  been  considered  as 
subsisting  between  the  Lutheran  churches  and  the  Church  of 
England,  the  mother  of  that  of  which  I  am  a  minister." 
(Jacobs,  356.)  In  his  sermon  at  Frederick,  Md.,  D.  F. 
Schaeffer  declared  that  it  is  noteworthy  that  both  Luther  and 
Calvin  "were  agreed  on  all  points,  with  the  exception  of  one 
which  was  of  minor  importance."  The  congregation  sang  ac- 
cording to  the  tune  of  "Wie  schoen  leuchtet  der  Morgenstern" : 
"One  hundred  years,  thrice  told  this  day,  By  heavenly  grace 
truth's  radiant  ray  Beamed  through  the  Reformation;  Yea, 
glorious  as  Aurora's  light  Dispels  the  gloomy  mists  of  night, 
Dawn'd  on  the  world  salvation.  Luther!  Zwingli!  Joined 
with  Calvin!  From  error's  sin  The  church  to  free  Restored 
religious  liberty."  In  Yorktown  a  German  cantata  was  sung 
from  which  we  quote,  according  to  the  original,  as  follows: 
"Chor :  Heute  vor  dreihundert  Jahr,  Strahlte  Licht  aus  Gottes- 
thron,  Durch  die  Reformation.  Luther,  Deutschlands  hoechste 
Zier,    Stund   der   Kirche   Jesu   fuer.      Solo:     Aber   welch   ein 


106  EAELY  HISTOBY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEEAiaSM. 

Widerstand !  Solo:  Luther  war  mit  Gott  verwandt.  Duetto: 
Seiner  Lehre  heller  Schein,  Drang  in  tausend  Herzen  ein, 
Drang  in  tausend  Herzen  ein.  Pause:  Zwingel  kam  Und 
Calvin,  Traten  auf  in  Christi  Sinn;  Duetto:  Und  verbreiten 
Licht  und  Heil  Segensvoll  in  ihrem  Teil.  Ganzer  Chor: 
Millionen  feiern  heut',  Dankbar  froh'  im  hoeh'ren  Ton,  Dieses 
Fest  dem  Mensehensohn."   (G.,  665.) 

63.  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Minutes  on  Lancaster 
Seminary.  —  From  1817  to  1825  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania 
and  the  German  Reformed  Church  were  engaged  in  devising 
plans  and  adopting  measures  looking  to  the  establishment  of 
a  united  theological  seminary  for  the  education  of  the  minis- 
ters of  both  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches.  According 
to  the  minutes  of  the  two  bodies  the  respective  actions  taken 
were  as  follows:  Minutes  of  the  German  Reformed  Synod, 
1817:  "The  committee  on  the  founding  of  a  literary  institu- 
tion reported  further,  recommending  that  two  committees  be 
appointed,  consisting  of  three  persons  each,  the  one  to  confer 
with  a  committee  of  the  New  York  Synod  [Dutch  Reformed] 
and  the  other  with  the  Lutheran  Synod.  Resolved,  That  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Pomp  and  Saml.  Helffenstein  be  the  committee  to 
the  New  York  Synod,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Hendel,  Hoffmeier, 
and  Wack,  Sr.,  the  committee  to  the  Lutheran  Synod."  (11.) 
Minutes  of  Pennsylvania  Synod,  1818:  "At  this  point,  Revs.  H. 
Hoffmeier,  E.  Wack,  and  W.  Hendel  appeared  before  the  synod 
as  a  committee  from  the  Reformed  Synod  of  this  State,  and 
presented  the  following  communication  in  writing,  namely: 
An  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Reformed  Synod  held  at 
York,  September  9,  1817.  Mr.  Hoffmeier  having  explained  this 
whole  subject  more  particularly  to  Synod,  it  was  thereupon 
resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer  with  our 
esteemed  brethren  of  the  Reformed  Synod  in  respect  to  the 
subject  under  consideration.  The  Messrs.  J.  George  Schmucker, 
Conrad  Jaeger,  and  H.  A.  Muhlenberg  were  named  as  this  com- 
mittee." "The  committee  appointed  yesterday  to  confer  with 
the  committee  of  the  Reformed  Synod,  and  to  make  inquiry  as 
to  the  way  in  which  a  union  seminary  for  the  education  of 
young  men  for  the  ministerial  office  in  both  churches  could  be 
best  established,  presented  the  following  report:    '1.  That  they 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  107 

have  attended  to  the  duty  assigned  them,  and  have  had  under 
consideration  the  fact  that  in  the  city  of  Lancaster  there  is  an 
institution  already  in  existence,  known  by  the  name  of  Frank- 
lin College.  ...  2.  That  the  committee  greatly  regret  that 
this  institution  has  hitherto  been  neglected,  and  consequently 
the  object  to  which  it  was  originally  devoted  by  the  State  has 
altogether  failed  of  attainment.  3.  That  the  committee  has 
examined  the  charter  of  said  institution  with  care,  and  finds 
it  necessary  to  recommend  that  the  president  thereof  be  in- 
structed to  make  arrangements  for  holding  a  meeting  of  all  its 
trustees.  4.  That  Messrs.  Hoffmeier  and  Endress  see  to  it  that 
such  a  meeting  be  held.  5.  That  a  committee  be  appointed  by 
both  synods,  who  shall  conjointly  prepare  a  plan  setting  forth 
how  this  institution  can  be  best  adapted  to  the  accomplishment 
of  the  purpose  aforementioned.'  The  above  report  was  received 
with  general  favor,  and  Messrs.  Schmucker,  Lochman,  Geissen- 
hainer,  Sr.,  Endress,  and  Muhlenberg  were  appointed  the  com- 
mittee provided  for  in  section  five  of  the  report."  (7.  8.) 
Minutes  of  German  Reformed  Synod,  1818:  "The  committee 
which  was  appointed  to  confer  with  a  committee  of  the  Lu- 
theran Synod  in  reference  to  the  founding  of  a  theological 
school  reported  that  they  attended  the  Lutheran  Synod  of  last 
year,  and  were  received  in  a  very  fraternal  manner;  and  that 
that  Synod  has  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  after  the 
present  meeting  with  a  committee  of  the  Reformed  Synod  on 
any  subjects  relating  to  the  school,  and  to  submit  something 
definite;  and  they  proposed  that  a  similar  committee  be  ap- 
pointed. The  proposition  of  the  committee  was  accepted,  and 
Revs.  J.  W.  Hoffmeier,  F.  Herman,  Sr.,  Wm.  Hendel,  Thos. 
Pomp,  and  S.  Helffenstein  were  appointed  such  committee." 
At  the  same  meeting  a  committee  which  had  been  appointed 
to  confer  with  a  similar  committee  from  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  in  reference  to  uniting  with  it  in  establishing  a  theo- 
logical seminary,  reported,  stating  that,  inasmuch  as  negotia- 
tions were  in  progress  with  reference  to  uniting  with  other  Ger- 
mans in  Pennsylvania,  who  have  a  common  interest  in  property 
voted  to  them  by  the  State  Legislature  for  the  support  of 
a  German  institution  [at  Lancaster],  nothing  definite  could  at 
present  be  done  in  the  matter.  (6.)  Minutes  of  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  1819:    "Pastor  Endress  made  a  verbal  report  in  behalf 


108  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

of  the  committee  appointed  the  previous  year  to  confer  with 
a  committee  of  the  Reformed  Synod  in  regard  to  the  matter  of 
Franklin  College  in  Lancaster.  Resolved,  That  the  sum  of  $100 
be  appropriated  out  of  our  synodical  treasury  toward  the  sup- 
port of  the  college  in  Lancaster,  provided  the  same  be  done  by 
the  Reformed  Synod.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed 
on  our  part  who  shall,  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Reformed 
Synod  in  Lancaster,  in  conjunction  with  a  committee  from  this 
latter  body,  draw  up  a  plan  for  a  theological  seminary.  Re- 
solved, That  the  Pastors  Schmucker,  Endress,  Lochman,  Muh- 
lenberg, and  Ernst  constitute  said  committee.  Resolved,  That, 
through  Mr.  Endress,  fifty  copies  of  the  minutes  of  synod  of 
this  year  be  forwarded  to  the  Reformed  Synod,  shortly  to  con- 
vene at  Lancaster."  (15.)  Minutes  of  Reformed  Synod,  1819: 
"Proposed  and  resolved  that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed 
to  confer  with  a  committee  of  the  Lutheran  Synod  in  refer- 
ence to  the  founding  of  a  union  theological  institution,  with 
authority  to  devise  the  plan  necessary  for  the  purpose.  The 
committee  consists  of  Revs.  Hoffmeier,  Hendel,  Pomp,  Becker, 
and  Saml.  Helffenstein."  "The  committee  of  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  Synods  to  consider  the  matter  relating  to  a  theo- 
logical seminary  have  prepared  a  plan  for  this  purpose,  and 
carefully  examined  the  same,  and  found  that  such  a  theological 
seminary  would  be  not  only  exceedingly  useful  for  our  youth 
preparing  for  the  ministerial  office,  but  also  can  easily  be 
established.  The  committee,  therefore,  submit  this  plan  to  the 
Rev.  Synod,  and,  at  the  same  time,  request  the  Rev.  Synod  to 
have  the  plan  printed,  in  order  that  it  may  be  circulated  among 
the  members  of  both  synods,  to  afford  each  one  an  opportunity 
to  examine  it  carefully  for  himself,  because  the  time  for  this 
purpose  is  at  present  too  short.  The  committee  of  the  Rev.  Lu- 
theran Synod  proposes  to  pay  half  the  expenses  of  printing,  and 
recommended  that  two  hundred  copies  thereof  be  printed."  "It 
was  proposed  and  resolved,  that  fifty  copies  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  present  Synod  be  transmitted  to  the  Rev.  Lutheran 
Synod  as  an  evidence  of  our  gratitude  and  mutual  respect." 
(7.  19.)  Minutes  of  Pennsylvania  Synod,  Lancaster,  May  28, 
1820:  "The  president  of  synod  made  a  verbal  report  in  behalf 
of  the  committee  that  had  been  appointed,  in  conjunction  with 
a  committee  of  the  Reformed  Synod,  last  September  at  Lan- 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  109 

caster  to  draw  up  and  publish  a  plan  for  a  union  seminary. 
From  this  report  it  appears  that  the  members  of  our  committee 
were  not  all  present;  that  the  joint  committee  did  actually 
prepare  a  plan;  that  the  printing  of  the  same  was  entrusted 
to  Revs.  Endress  and  Hoffmeier,  but  that  this  duty  was  not  at- 
tended to.  Dr.  Endress  arose  and  made  a  long  speech  in  defense 
of  himself,  referring  to  a  number  of  local  reasons  and  certain 
misunderstandings  that  influenced  him  to  omit  the  publication 
of  the  plan.  To  this  it  was  replied  that  the  reasons  given  by 
him  were  not  altogether  satisfactory.  Candidate  Schnee  arose 
and  gave  synod  an  account  of  an  institution  located  at  Middle- 
town,  Pa.,  known  as  'The  Fry's  Orphans'  Home.'  He  awakened 
the  joyful  hope  that  by  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  it  might  be 
possible  at  some  future  time  to  establish  at  that  place  a  theo- 
logical seminary  for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country. 
Dr.  Lochman  arose  and  made  a  powerful  speech  in  favor  of 
establishment  of  a  theological  seminary,  and  of  supporting  the 
college  at  Lancaster.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed 
to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Reformed  Synod  shortly  to  be 
held  at  Hagerstown;  that  Revs.  D.  F.  Schaeffer  and  B.  Kurtz 
constitute  said  committee."  (19.20.)  Minutes  of  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  Chambersburg,  1821:  "Revs.  Hoffman  and  Rahausen, 
deputies  of  the  German  Reformed  Synod,  took  seats  as  ad- 
visory members.  Resolved,  That  Rev.  Mr.  Denny,  pastor  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  at  Chambersburg,  be  acknowledged  as  an 
advisory  member  of  this  synodical  assembly.  The  committee  to 
examine  the  protocol  of  the  German  Reformed  General  Synod 
reported  that  they  examined  said  protocol,  and  found  the  fol- 
lowing items  which  may  require  to  be  considered  at  this  meet- 
ing: 1.  That  Messrs.  Schaeffer  and  Kurtz,  appointed  as  our 
delegates  to  the  Reformed  Synod  at  our  last  year's  meeting, 
were  received  as  advisory  members  by  the  Reformed  Synod. 
Resolved,  That  this  Synod  sees  in  this  action  evidence  of  the 
love  of  those  whom  we  acknowledge  as  brethren,  and  that  it  is 
prepared  always,  as  heretofore,  to  reciprocate  this  kindness. 
2.  That  Revs.  Hoffman  and  Rahausen  were  appointed  delegates 
by  the  Reformed  Synod  to  attend  our  present  synodical  meeting. 
Resolved,  That  Pastors  Muhlenberg  and  Knoske  attend  the  next 
meeting  of  the  Reformed  Synod  at  Reading  as  delegates  from 
this  Synod."    (6.  16  f.)      In   1820  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  en- 


110  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

tered  upon  its  wild  scheme  to  found  a  seminary  at  Frederick, 
Md.,  with  Dr.  Milledoller  as  professor,  with  $2,000  salary.  This 
stopped  all  other  negotiations  for  the  time  being.  Dr.  Mille- 
doller held  the  call  under  consideration  two  years,  and  then  de- 
clined. He  went  to  New  Brunswick  immediately  after  that, 
and  Col.  Rutger's  money  went  with  him  to  that  place,  which, 
it  was  understood,  would  go  to  whatever  place  Dr.  Milledoller 
would  go.  {Lutheran  Observer,  Sept.,  1881.)  The  fact  that 
nothing  tangible  resulted  from  the  movement  of  uniting  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  synods  and  of  establishing  a  union 
seminary  was  not  due  in  the  least  to  a  growing  confessionalism 
on  the  part  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  for  at  that  time  such 
was  not  in  evidence  anywhere. 

TYPICAL  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  SYNOD. 

64.  C.  F.  L.  Endress  Denounces  Form  of  Concord.  — 
Among  the  better  class  of  Lutherans  prominent  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania Synod  during  the  decades  immediately  preceding  and 
following  the  year  1800  were  such  men  as  J.  B.  Schmucker, 
H.  A.  Muhlenberg,  Lochman,  Probst,  and  Endress.  In  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  General  Synod,  1827,  Lochman  and  Endress  are 
spoken  of  as  belonging  to  "the  Fathers  of  our  General  Synod, 
and  able  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  as  the  "oldest  and  most 
respected  members"  of  the  Synod  of  East  Pennsylvania,  as 
"men  who  were  among  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  whose  departure  is  lamented  no  less  by  the  synods 
in  general  than  by  that  to  which  they  more  immediately  be- 
longed." (12.  21.)  Yet  they,  too,  were  absolutely  indifferent  as 
to  the  Lutheran  Symbols.  Dr.  C.  F.  Endress,  a  pupil  of  Hel- 
muth,  a  leading  spirit  in  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  and 
most  prominent  in  the  unionistic  transactions  with  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church,  declared  his  theological  position  as 
follows:  "We  have  the  Formula  Concordiae,  in  which  expul- 
sion, condemnation,  anathema,  were,  in  the  most  liberal  manner, 
pronounced  and  poured  forth  against  all  those  who  were  of 
a  different  opinion,  which,  however,  thank  God,  was  never  re- 
ceived universally  by  the  Lutheran  Church.  I  would  suffer  both 
my  hands  to  be  burned  off  before  I  would  subscribe  that  instru- 
ment."   "As  we  have  hitherto  received  the  Augsburg  Confession 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISH.  Ill 

and  Luther's  Catechism  and  Melanchthon's  Apology,  so  I  have 
no  objection  that  they  should  be  kept  in  reverence  and  respect 
as  our  peculiar  documents,  but  not  to  overrule  the  Bible.  For 
by  this  shall  the  Lutheran  Church  forever  distinguish  itself 
from  all  other  religious  connections,  that  the  Bible,  the  Bible 
alone,  shall  remain  the  only  sun  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  that  we 
rest  upon  human  declarations  of  faith  only  in  so  far  as  they 
receive  their  light  more  or  less  from  that  great  light."  "What 
shall  I  answer  on  the  question,  What  is  the  confession  of  faith 
of  the  Lutheran  Church?  Answer:  I  will  not  dictate  to  you 
what  you  should  say;  but  if  I  should  be  asked,  I  would  say, 
first,  and  principally,  and  solely,  and  alone:  The  Holy  Word 
of  God  contained  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and  apostles. 
The  confessions  of  faith  by  the  Church  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies we  hold  in  conformity  with  the  Bible,  and  receive  them, 
as  far  as  I  know,  universally  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  The 
confession  of  the  princes  of  the  German  Empire  presented  at 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg  is  held  by  all  in  honor  and  respect,  and 
when  we  compare  it  with  other  human  confessions,  we  give  it 
a  decided  preference.  Luther's  Catechism  is  used  in  all  Lu- 
theran churches,  and  no  catechism  of  other  religious  denomina- 
tions has  that  honor.  The  so-called  Apology  is  in  possession  of 
very  few  Lutheran  ministers;  but  whether  they  have  read  it 
or  not,  they  consider  it  a  good  book.  The  Smalcald  Articles 
I  have  often  read.  In  Germany  they  are  taken  up  among  the 
Symbols.  I  know  not  whether  any  other  divine  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  ever  read  it  except  Muhlenberg  and  Loch- 
man.  In  short,  we  hold  firmly  and  steadfastly  to  our  beloved 
Bible,  when  the  one  holds  to  Calvin,  the  other  to  Zwingli, 
a  third  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  a  fourth  to  the  Confession 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  a  fifth  to  the  Westminster  Catechism, 
a  sixth  to  the  Common-prayer  Book,  a  seventh  to  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant,  and  the  eighth  to  the  darkened  and  de- 
praved reason  per  se,  the  ninth  to  reason  under  the  name  of 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  tenth  to  the  devil  himself  in  the  form  of 
an  angel  of  light.  But  I  will  cleave  to  my  beloved  Bible,  and 
hereby  it  shall  remain.    Amen."   (Lath.  Observer,  Sept.,  1881.) 

65.    Rev.  Probst    Defending    Union.  —  The    Lutheran 
Observer,   September,    1881,   from   whose   columns    we   quoted 


112  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

the  statements  above  concerning  Dr.  Endress,  continues: 
Rev.  Probst,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
from  1813  until  his  death,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  senti- 
ments of  his  brethren,  in  a  work  published  in  1826  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  promoting  a  formal  and  complete  union  of 
the  German  Reformed  and  Lutheran  churches  in  America,  en- 
titled, Reunion  of  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed,  says  that  there 
was  no  material  difference  of  doctrinal  views  between  them, 
the  Lutherans  having  relinquished  the  bodily  presence,  and  the 
Reformed  unconditional  election.  Speaking  of  the  supposed 
obstacles  to  such  union,  he  remarks:  "The  doctrine  of  un- 
conditional election  cannot  be  in  the  way.  This  doctrine  has 
long  since  been  abandoned;  for  there  can  scarcely  be  a  single 
German  Reformed  preacher  found  who  regards  it  as  his  duty 
to  defend  this  doctrine.  Zwingli's  more  liberal,  rational,  and 
Scriptural  view  of  this  doctrine,  as  well  as  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, has  become  the  prevailing  one  among  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed, and  it  has  been  deemed  proper  to  abandon  the  view  of 
both  Luther  and  Calvin  on  the  subject  of  both  these  doc- 
trines." (74.)  "The  whole  mass  of  the  old  Confessions,  occa- 
sioned by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  those  troublous  times, 
has  become  obsolete  by  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  is  yet  valuable 
only  as  matter  of  history.  Those  times  and  circumstances  have 
passed  away,  and  our  situation,  both  in  regard  to  political  and 
ecclesiastical  relations,  is  entirely  changed.  We  are  therefore 
not  bound  to  these  books,  but  only  to  the  Bible.  For  what  do 
the  unlearned  know  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  the  Form  of 
Concord,  or  the  Synod  of  Dort?"  (76.)  "Both  churches  [the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed]  advocate  the  evangelical  liberty 
of  judging  for  themselves,  and  have  one  and  the  same  ground 
of  their  faith  —  the  Bible.  Accordingly,  both  regard  the  Gospel 
as  their  exclusive  rule  of  faith  and  practise,  and  are  forever 
opposed  to  all  violations  of  the  liberty  of  conscience."  (76.) 
"All  enlightened  and  intelligent  preachers  of  both  churches 
agree  that  there  is  much  in  the  former  Symbolical  Books  that 
must  be  stricken  out  as  antiquated  and  contrary  to  common 
sense,  and  be  made  conformable  with  the  Bible,  and  that  we ' 
have  no  right  to  pledge  ourselves  to  the  mere  human  opinions 
of  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or  Zwingli,  and  that  we  have  but  one 
Master,  Christ.    Nor  is  any  evangelical  Christian  bound  to  the 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  113 

interpretations  which  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or  any  other  person 
may  place  on  the  words  of  Christ;  but  each  one  has  the  right 
to  interpret  them  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science." (80.)  "Inasmuch  as  all  educated  ministers  of  the 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches  now  entertain  more  reason- 
able and  more  Scriptural  views  on  those  doctrines  which  were 
formerly  the  subjects  of  controversy,  what  necessity  is  there  of 
a  continued  separation?"   (81.) 

SYNOD'S   UN-LUTHERAN   ATTITUDE   CONTINUED. 

66.  Decades  of  Indifferentism.  —  After  the  abortive 
efforts  at  establishing  a  union  seminary  and  uniting  with  the 
Reformed  organically,  and  after  her  withdrawal  from  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  in  1823,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  passed  through 
a  long  period  of  indifferentism  before  the  spirit  of  Lutheran 
confessionalism  once  more  began  to  manifest  itself,  chiefly  in 
consequence  of  influences  from  German  Lutheran  immigrants 
and  by  the  activity  of  such  men  as  Drs.  Krauth  and  Mann. 
However,  even  till  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the 
symptoms  of  reviving  Lutheranism  in  the  Pennsylvania  Synod 
were  but  relatively  weak,  few,  and  far  between.  The  Agenda 
of  1842  still  contained  the  union  formula  of  distribution  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  revealed  a  unionistic  and  Reformed  spirit 
everywhere.  A  form  of  Baptism  savors  of  Pelagianism  and 
Rationalism.  The  Agenda  does  not  contain  a  single  clear  and 
unequivocal  confession  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence.  The  second  form  for  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper 
states:  "As  we  are  sensual  creatures,  He  [Christ]  has  ap- 
pointed two  external,  visible  elements,  bread  and  wine,  as 
tokens  (Pfaender),  as  it  were,  in  order  by  them  to  assure  us 
that  with,  in,  and  under  them  (mit,  bei  und  unter  denselben) 
we  should  become  partakers  of  His  body  and  blood,  that  is,  of 
His  entire  grace  of  atonement.  As  surely,  therefore,  as  a  peni- 
tent communicant  receives  the  blessed  bread  and  the  blessed 
cup,  so  surely  he,  in  a  manner  invisible,  will  also  receive 
from  his  Savior  a  share  in  His  body  and  blood."  {Lutheraner 
1844,47;  1846,61.81.)  In  1848  Rev.  Weyl,  of  Baltimore,  the 
arch-enemy  of  confessional  Lutheranism  and  unscrupulous  slan- 
derer of  Wyneken,  Reynolds,  etc.,  declared  in  his  church-paper 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  8 


114  EAKLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

that  within  the  whole  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  there  were  hardly 
ten  preachers  who,  in  their  faith  and  teaching  regarding  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  deviated  from  the  views  of  the 
General  Synod.  Dr.  Walther  remarked  with  respect  to  this 
statement,  which  he  was  inclined  to  regard  as  mendacious: 
"Since  the  [Pennsylvania]  Synod  was  not  ashamed  to  conclude 
its  Centennial  Jubilee  by  declaring  this  miserable  paper  [of 
Weyl]  its  organ  and  thereby  publishing  to  the  world  its  spir- 
itual death  [as  a  Lutheran  Church],  it  serves  her  right  to  have 
this  man  write  her  epitaph."  (L.  1848,  31.)  Concerning  the 
new  hymn-book  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  Kev.  Hoyer  wrote 
in  Kirchliche  Mitteilungen:  "After  a  closer  inspection  I  found 
that  this  hymn-book  was  compiled  for  three  classes  of  people, 
Orthodox,  Unionists,  and  Supranaturalists.  Here  we  find,  be- 
sides 'Es  ist  das  Heil  uns  kommen  her,'  also  'Religion,  von  Gott 
gegeben,'  as  well  as  a  hymn  for  the  national  holiday,  the  4th  of 
July,  imploring  the  Lord  to  give  us  the  spirit  of  Washington." 
( 1850,  91 ;  L.  7,  55.)  Der  Lutherische  Herold,  which,  edited  by 
H.  Ludwig,  appeared  since  April,  1851,  in  New  York,  repre- 
sented the  class  of  German  Lutherans  within  the  Ministeriums 
of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  then  most  advanced  in  their 
protestations  of  Lutheranism.  But  what  kind  of  Lutheranism 
it  was  that  Ludwig  and  his  paper  advocated  appears  from  the 
following  quotation :  "We  expect  little  sympathy  from  the  Old 
Lutherans;  yet,  our  endeavor  shall  always  be  to  banish  from 
our  columns  everything  that  might  increase  the  breach,  for  in 
doctrine  we  are  one,  we  only  differ  in  the  form  of  the  dress, 
that  is  to  say,  in  practise,  and  in  the  mode  and  manner  of 
spreading  the  doctrine."  (L.  7,  151;  8,  143.)  In  January,  1855, 
the  same  paper  was  complimented  by  the  Reformierte  Kirchen- 
zeitung  as  follows:  "The  Lutherische  Herold,  published  by 
H.  Ludwig,  endeavors  to  mediate  between  the  two  extremes  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country,  and  represents  the  milder 
Melanchthonian  conception  of  the  Sacraments.  We  read  the 
Herold  with  joy,  and  wish  it  a  recognition  and  encouragement 
commensurate  with  its  services."  (L.  11,  102.)  As  late  as  1851 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  according  to  the  report  of  the  con- 
vention in  that  year,  51  ministers  being  present,  maintained 
fraternal  intercourse  with  the  Reformed,  United,  Methodists, 
and   Moravians.      She   admitted   Reformed   and   Presbyterian 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  115 

preachers  as  advisory  members.  Synod  had  also  received  a  Re- 
formed minister  as  such  into  her  ministerium.  She  assembled 
in  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  churches  for  union  services,  and 
attended  the  service  in  a  Methodist  church.  She  also  adopted 
the  resolution  to  enter  into  more  intimate  relations  with  the 
Moravians.  (L.  1852,  138.)  In  the  following  year  Synod  re- 
turned to  its  original  confessional  position  in  the  days  of 
Muhlenberg,  though  in  a  somewhat  equivocal  manner.  (Spaeth, 
W.  J.  Mann,  171.)  In  1853,  however,  at  the  same  time  ap- 
pealing to  all  Lutheran  synods  to  follow  her  example,  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  resolved,  by  a  vote  of  54  to  28,  to  reunite 
with  the  General  Synod,  then  rapidly  approaching  its  lowest 
water-mark,  doctrinally  and  confessionally,  its  leading  men 
openly  and  uninterruptedly  denouncing  the  doctrines  distinc- 
tive of  Lutheranism  and  zealously  preparing  the  way  for  the 
Definite  Platform  as  a  substitute  for  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Indeed,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  added  to  its  resolution  on  the 
reunion  that,  "should  the  General  Synod  violate  its  constitu- 
tion, and  require  of  our  Synod  assent  to  anything  conflicting 
with  the  old  and  long-established  faith  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church,  then  our  delegates  are  hereby  required  to 
protest  against  such  action,  to  withdraw  from  its  sessions,  and 
to  report  to  this  body."  (Penn.  Minutes  1853,  18.)  However, 
the  action  as  such  was  tantamount  to  a  violation  and  denial 
of  the  Lutheran  Confession.  Dr.  Walther  remarked  with  re- 
spect to  the  union:  "This  event  will  be  hailed  by  many  with 
great  joy,  a  joy,  however,  that  we  are  unable  to  share  in 
in  any  measure.  .  .  .  For  who  does  not  see  that  the  Synod 
[of  Pennsylvania],  by  entering  into  ecclesiastical  union  with 
a  body  notoriously  heterodox,  has  already  departed  from, 
and  actually  denied,  the  good  Confession  of  our  Church?" 
(L.  9,  122.)  Confirming  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  thirteen  years  later,  when  the  ranks  of 
her  conservatives  had  materially  increased,  severed  her  connec- 
tion with  the  General  Synod. 

67.  Dr.  Sihler's  Estimate.  —  In  1858  Dr.  Sihler  wrote  con- 
cerning the  Pennsylvania  Synod:  "When  the  writer  of  this 
article,  more  than  fourteen  years  ago,  came  to  this  country 
and  gradually  informed  himself  on  the  American  conditions  of 


116  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

the  Lutheran  Church,  he  had  to  observe  with  heartfelt  sorrow 
that  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  then  still  undivided  and  very 
numerous,  in  whose  territory  or  vicinity  the  leaders  of  the  so- 
called  Lutheran  General  Synod  have  their  field  of  labor  was 
so  completely  indifferent  toward  the  shameful  apostasy  of  the 
latter  from  the  faith  and  the  Confession  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  For  in  vain  one  looked  for  a  strong  and  decided 
testimony  in  any  of  the  synodical  reports  of  this  church-body 
against  the  pseudo-Lutherans  of  the  General  Synod.  Nor  was 
there  to  be  found  within  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  or  in  other 
synods  not  belonging  to  the  General  Synod,  so  much  earnest 
zeal  and  love  for  the  truth  of  God's  Word  and  of  the  Con- 
fessions of  the  Church,  nor  did  it  have  any  men  among  its 
theologians  who  were  able  to  expose  thoroughly  in  the  Eng- 
lish language  the  error,  the  hollowness  and  shallowness  of  the 
miserable  productions  of  a  Schmucker  and  Kurtz,  who  were 
made  Doctors  of  Theology  by  God  in  His  wrath  and  by  Satan 
as  a  joke  and  for  the  purpose  of  ridicule.  On  the  contrary, 
they  seemed  to  be  not  a  little  impressed  with  the  theological 
learning  and  dogmatical  science  of  these  two  so-called  Doctors, 
who,  in  rare  self-satisfaction,  found  life  and  complete  happi- 
ness in  Reinhard's  supernaturalism.  In  short,  these  open 
counterfeiters,  Calvinists,  Methodists,  and  Unionists,  these  base 
traitors  and  destroyers  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  were  and 
always  remained  the  dear  brethren,  who  contributed  not  a  little 
to  the  prosperity  and  welfare  of  the  dear  'Lutheran  Zion.'  Ac- 
cordingly, it  did  not  require  a  gift  of  prophecy  when  the  writer 
of  this  article,  as  early  as  1844,  foretold  in  the  Lutherische 
Kirchenzeitung  [edited  by  Schmidt  in  Pittsburgh]  that,  in- 
differently observing,  as  they  did,  the  anticonfessional,  church- 
destroying  activities  of  the  so-called  General  Synod,  yea, 
fraternizing  with  their  leaders,  they  would  become  their  prey, 
as  was  actually  the  case  several  years  ago."  {Lehre  u.  Wehre 
1858,  137.) 

LUTHERANS  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

68.  Pioneer  Pastors  in  South  Carolina.  —  In  1735  colo- 
nists from  Germany  and  Switzerland  had  settled  in  Orange- 
burg Co.,  S.  C.  Their  first  resident  pastor  was  J.  U.  Giessen- 
danner,  who  arrived  in  1737  with  new  emigrants,  but  died  the 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  117 

following  year.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  who  was  ordained 
first  by  the  Presbyterians  and  then  by  the  Bishop  of  London, 
in  1849.  Orangeburg  was  thus  lost  to  the  Lutheran  Church. 
At  Charleston,  S.  C,  Bolzius  conducted  the  first  Lutheran  ser- 
vices and  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  in  1734.  Muhlen- 
berg preached  there  in  1742.  The  first  pastor  who,  in  1755, 
organized  the  Lutherans  at  Charleston  into  a  congregation 
(St.  John's)  was  J.  G.  Friedrichs  (Friederichs) .  In  1759  he 
was  succeeded  by  H.  B.  G.  Wordman  (Wartmann),  who  had 
labored  in  Pennsylvania.  In  1763  Wordman  was  succeeded  by 
J.  N.  Martin.  He  dedicated  the  church  begun  in  1759.  J.  S. 
Hahnbaum,  who  came  from  Germany  with  his  family  in  1767, 
was,  according  to  the  church  records,  forbidden  to  "be  addicted 
to  the  English  Articles"  and  to  attack  the  Church  of  England. 
The  gown,  wafers,  festivals,  gospels  and  epistles,  and  the  use 
of  the  litany  on  Sunday  afternoons,  are  required.  (Jacobs,  297.) 
Hahnbaum  died  in  1770.  His  successor,  who  also  married  his 
daughter,  was  Magister  F.  Daser.  He  had  arrived  in  Charles- 
ton, sold  as  a  redemptioner,  and  had  been  redeemed  by  one  of 
the  elders  of  the  Lutheran  congregation.  (G.,  574.)  In  1774 
H.  M.  Muhlenberg  advised  the  congregation  and  adjusted  some 
of  her  difficulties.  In  the  same  year  Martin  returned  and 
served  till  1778,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  Christian  Streit, 
who  labored  until  he  was  driven  away  in  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
Revolutionary  War,  there  being  a  tradition  of  his  arrest  by 
the  British  in  1780.  (Jacobs,  297.)  Pastor  Martin  served 
a  third  term  in  Charleston  from  1786  to  1787,  when  he  was 
succeeded  by  J.  C.  Faber,  who  wrote  to  Germany,  from  where 
he  had  arrived  in  1787:  His  congregation  was  growing;  it 
was  a  model  of  Christian  unity;  it  consisted  of  Lutherans, 
German  Reformed,  and  Catholics;  they  all  lived  together  most 
peacefully,  attending  the  same  services  and  sharing  in  the  sup- 
port of  their  pastor,  who  had  brought  about  such  a  union.  No 
wonder  that  the  congregation  was  satisfied  with  the  service  of 
the  Episcopalian  Pogson  when  Faber  had  resigned  on  account 
of  ill  health.   (G.,  582  f.) 

69.  "Unio  Ecclesiastica"  in  South  Carolina.  —  In  1788 
fifteen  German  congregations  were  incorporated  in  the  State 
of  South  Carolina,  nine  of  them  being  Lutheran  and  six  Re- 


118  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

formed  or  United.  The  Lutheran  congregations  were  served 
by  F.  Daser,  J.  G.  Bamberg,  F.  A.  Wallberg,  F.  J.  Wallern,  and 
C.  Binnicher;  the  rest,  by  the  Reformed  Pastors  Theus  and 
Froelich.  In  1787  these  ministers  and  congregations  had  united 
as  a  "corpus  evangelicum"  under  the  following  title:  "Unio 
Ecclesiastica  of  the  German  Protestant  Churches  in  the  State 
of  South  Carolina."  Pastor  Daser  was  chosen  Senior  Minis- 
terii.  At  the  following  convention,  January  8,  1788,  all  Lu- 
theran ministers  present  pledged  themselves  on  the  Symbolical 
Books.  A  third  meeting  was  held  August  12,  1788;  President 
Daser  presented  a  constitution,  which  was  adopted.  Among 
other  things  it  provided:  1.  The  intention  of  this  union  was 
not  that  any  member  should  deny  his  own  confession. 
2.  A  Directorium,  composed  of  the  ministers  and  two  laymen, 
should  remain  in  power  as  long  as  a  majority  of  the  15  con- 
gregations would  be  in  favor  of  it.  3.  The  Directorium  should 
be  entrusted  with  all  church  affairs:  the  admission,  dismissal, 
election,  examination,  ordination,  and  induction  of  ministers; 
the  establishment  of  new  churches  and  schools;  the  order  of 
divine  service,  collections,  etc.  4.  Any  member  of  any  of  the 
congregations  was  bound  to  appear  before  the  Directorium 
when  cited  by  this  body.  5.  Where  the  majority  of  a  congre- 
gation was  Reformed,  a  Reformed  Agenda  and  Catechism  were 
to  be  used.  6.  The  ministers  should  be  faithful  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  pastoral  duties,  .  .  .  visiting  the  schools  fre- 
quently, admonishing  the  parents  to  give  their  children  a  Chris- 
tian training,  etc.  7.  A  copy  of  this  constitution  should  be 
deposited  in  every  congregation  and  subscribed  by  its  members. 
8.  Complaints  against  the  pastor  which  the  vestry  failed  to 
settle  should  be  reported  to  the  President  immediately.  9.  The 
brethren  in  Europe  should  be  petitioned  to  provide  the  congre- 
gations with  preachers  and  schoolteachers.  —  It  is  self-evident 
that  this  anomalous  union  with  a  Directorium  invested  with 
governing  and  judicial  powers,  to  whose  decisions  Lutheran  as 
well  as  Reformed  pastors  and  congregations  had  to  submit, 
lacked  vitality,  and,  apart  from  flagrant  denials  of  the  truth, 
was  bound  to  lead  to  destructive  frictions.  After  an  existence 
of  several  years  the  "Unio  Ecclesiastica"  died  a  natural  death, 
the  Directorium,  as  far  as  has  been  traced,  holding  its  last 
meeting  in  1794.     By  1804,  the  ministers  who  had  organized 


EABLY  HISTOBY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHEBANISM.  119 

this  union  body,  all  save  one,  were  dead.  The  congregations 
eked  out  a  miserable  existence,  becoming,  in  part,  a  prey  to  the 
Methodists  and  Baptists.  Thus  also  the  promising  Lutheran 
field  of  South  Carolina  was  finally  turned  into  a  desert,  chiefly 
in  consequence  of  the  dearth  of  Lutheran  preachers,  who  really 
could  have  been  produced  from  this  very  field.   (G.,  601  ff. ) 

THE  NORTH  CAROLINA  SYNOD. 

70.  Unionistic  from  the  Beginning'.  —  Most  of  the  Ger- 
mans in  North  Carolina  came  from  Pennsylvania.  In  1771  the 
congregation  at  Salisbury  (which  was  in  existence  as  early 
as  1768,  and  soon  thereafter  erected  a  church),  together  with 
the  congregations  in  Rowan  Co.  and  in  Mecklenburg  Co.,  sent 
a  delegation  to  England,  Holland,  and  Germany,  asking  for 
assistance.  The  result  was  that  Pastor  A.  Ruessmann,  who 
died  in  1794,  and  Teacher  J.  G.  Arends  (Ahrends),  who  soon 
officiated  as  pastor,  were  sent  in  1773.  In  1787  Pastor  Chr.  E. 
Bernhardt  arrived,  followed  by  C.  A.  G.  Stork  (Storch)  in  1788, 
and  A.  Roschen,  who  returned  to  Germany  in  1800.  But  it 
was  not  genuine  Lutheranism  which  was  cultivated  by  these 
German  emissaries.  Many  of  the  books  coming  from  Helm- 
stedt  were  of  a  rationalistic  character.  Also  the  North  Caro- 
lina Catechism  ( "Nordkarolingischer  Katechismus  .  .  .,  ent- 
worfen  von  Johann  Kaspar  Velthusen,  Doktor  und  ordentlichem 
Lehrer  der  Theologie,  erstem  Prediger  in  Helmstedt  und  Gene- 
ralsuperintendent" )  savored  of  rationalism.  The  confessional 
and  doctrinal  degeneration  of  the  pastors  in  North  Carolina 
appears  from,  and  is  attested  by,  the  fact  that  in  his  ordi- 
nation, in  1794,  R.  J.  Miller  was  pledged  to  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  of  the  Episcopalians.  The  Synod  of  North  Carolina 
experienced  a  rapid  growth,  receiving  19  congregations  into 
membership  in  1813.  According  to  the  Report  of  1815,  twenty 
lay  delegates  were  present  at  the  meeting  of  that  year.  In 
1823,  after  the  separation  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  reported  19  ministers  with  about  1,360  com- 
municants. Its  first  convention  had  been  held  in  Salisbury, 
May  2,  1803.  Besides  the  lay  delegates,  this  meeting  was  at- 
tended by  Pastor  Arends,  Miller,  Stork,  and  Paul  Henkel. 
From  the  very  beginning  the  Articles  of  Synod  made  no  men- 


120  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

tion  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions.  At  the  meeting  of  1804 
a  Reformed  minister  delivered  the  sermon.  In  1810  a  reso- 
lution was  passed  permitting  every  pastor  to  administer  com- 
munion to  those  of  another  faith.  It  was  furthermore  resolved : 
"Whereas  it  is  evident  that  awakenings  occur  in  our  day  by 
means  of  preaching  for  three  consecutive  days,  and  whereas 
this  is  to  be  desired  among  our  brethren  in  the  faith,  it  was 
resolved,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Philip  Henkel,  to  make  a  trial  in 
all  our  churches  next  spring."  In  the  same  year  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  ordered  the  ordination  of  the  Moravian 
G.  Shober  (Schober).  The  minutes  of  1815  record  the  follow- 
ing: "Since  the  church  council  of  a  newly  built  Reformed 
church  in  Guilford  County  expressly  desires  that  our  next 
synod  be  held  in  their  church,  it  was  resolved  that  synod  shall 
be  held  in  said  church  on  the  third  Sunday  in  October,  1816." 
As  in  the  other  Lutheran  bodies  of  that  time,  pulpit-  and  altar- 
fellowship,  Reformed  teaching,  and  Methodistic  enthusiasm  be- 
came increasingly  rampant  in  Synod.  In  1817  Synod  declared 
that  it  would  continue  to  bear  the  Lutheran  name,  and  became 
demonstrative  over  the  Reformation  tercentenary.  The  same 
convention,  however,  passed  a  resolution  with  regard  to  the 
joint  hymn-book  published  by  Schaeffer  and  Maund  in  Balti- 
more, as  follows:  "We  hereby  tender  the  aforementioned 
gentlemen  our  heartiest  thanks,  and  rejoice  that  we  are  able 
to  accede  fully  to  the  aforementioned  recommendations  for  its 
use  both  at  church  and  in  private  among  all  our  congregations. 
At  the  same  time  we  humbly  petition  the  God  of  love  and  unity 
to  crown  it  with  blessings  in  His  kingdom  and  temple.  It  was 
also  resolved  that  the  English  Agenda  which  Quitman  had 
introduced  in  New  York  "be  adopted  as  one  of  our  symbolical 
books,  and  as  such  be  recommended  for  use."    (G.,  647.) 

71.  Shober's  Jubilee  Book.  —  In  1817  Synod  also  ap- 
proved of,  and  resolved  to  publish,  Shober's  jubilee  book, 
"A  Comprehensive  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the 
Blessed  Reformation  of  the  Christian  Church  by  Doctor  Mar- 
tin Luther,  begun  on  the  thirty-first  of  October,  A.  D.  1517; 
interspersed  with  views  of  his  character  and  doctrine,  extracted 
from  his  book;  and  how  the  Church  established  by  him  arrived 
and  progressed  in  North  America,  as  also  the  Constitution  and 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  121 

Rules  of  that  Church,  in  North  Carolina  and  adjoining  States, 
as  existing  in  October,  1817."  In  the  Preface,  Shober  gives 
utterance  to  the  hope  that  all  Protestant  churches  and  their 
individual  members  would,  by  reading  his  book,  be  moved  "to 
pray  to  God  that  He  would  awaken  the  spirit  of  love  and  union 
in  all  who  believe  in  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  Medi- 
ator between  God  and  men,  in  order  to  attain  the  happy  time 
prophesied,  when  we  shall  blissfully  live  as  one  flock  under 
one  Shepherd."  On  page  208  ff.  he  says :  "Why  are  we  not  all 
united  in" love  and  union?  Why  these  distances,  controversies, 
disputes,  mutual  condemnations,  why  these  splittings  of  for- 
mulas? Why  cannot  the  Church  of  Christ  be  one  flock  under 
one  Shepherd?  My  friends,  at  the  proper  time  the  Lord  will 
unite  us  all.  Thank  God,  we  see  the  morning  star  rising; 
the  Union  approaches,  in  Europe  through  Bible-societies,  in 
America,  too,  through  mission-societies,  through  the  efforts  of 
the  rich  and  poor  in  sending  out  religious  tracts,  through  the 
hundred  thousand  children  who  now  learn  to  know  their  God 
and  Savior  in  the  Sunday-schools.  Through  frequent  revivals 
and  many  other  signs  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  earth  will 
soon  be  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord.  Among  all 
classes  of  those  who  adore  Jesus  as  God  I  see  nothing  of  im- 
portance which  could  prevent  a  cordial  union;  and  what 
a  fortunate  event  would  it  be  if  all  churches  would  unite  and 
send  delegates  to  a  general  convention  of  all  denominations 
and  there  could  settle  down  on  Christ,  the  Rock,  while  at  the 
same  time  each  denomination  would  be  permitted  to  retain  its 
peculiar  ways  and  forms.  This  would  have  the  influence  on  all 
Christians  that,  wherever  and  whenever  they  met  each  other, 
they  would  love  one  another  and  keep  fellowship  with  each 
other."  Synod  declared:  This  book  "will  give  to  our  fellow- 
Christians  in  other  denominations  a  clear  view  of  what  the 
Lutheran  Church  really  is."  Yet,  in  this  jubilee-gift  Shober 
practically  denied  the  Lutheran  doctrines  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  of  Absolution,  and,  as  shown,  enthusiastically  advocated 
a  universal  union  of  all  Christian  denominations.  Previously 
Shober  had  written:  "I  have  carefully  examined  the  doctrine 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  have  read  many  excellent  writers  of 
the  Presbyterians,  know  the  doctrine  of  the  Methodists  from 


122  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMEEICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

their  book  Portraiture  of  Methodism,  and  am  acquainted  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Baptists,  as  far  as  they  receive  and  adore 
Jesus  the  Savior.  Among  all  classes  of  those  who  adore  Jesus 
as  God,  I  find  nothing  of  importance  which  could  prevent 
a  cordial  union."   ( 647  f .  682. ) 

CRITICAL  CONVENTIONS. 

72.  "Untimely  Synod"  of  1819.  —  The  leaders  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  Stork,  Shober,  Jacob  Scherer,  Daniel 
Scherer,  Miller,  and  others,  cherished  a  sanguine  hope  of 
uniting  all  churches  into  a  national  American  Church,  despite 
doctrinal  differences.  What  could  be  more  delightful,  and  what 
in  all  the  world  could  be  more  desired,  they  declared  in  1820, 
than  "to  bring  about  a  general  union  of  all  religious  parties 
throughout  the  entire  land,  that  the  glorious  prophecy  might 
be  fulfilled:  that  they  might  all  be  one  flock  who  are  all  under 
one  Shepherd."  (Tennessee  Report  1820,  25.)  The  scheme  also 
of  organizing  a  Lutheran  General  Synod  (for  which  purpose 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod  had  invited  all  other  Lutheran  bodies 
to  attend  its  meetings  at  Baltimore  in  1819  in  order  to  discuss 
plans  for  this  projected  Pan-Lutheran  union)  was  exultantly 
hailed  as  a  step  in  this  direction  by  the  leaders  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod,  notably  by  Shober.  Accordingly,  in  order  to 
enable  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to  take  part  in  the  meeting 
at  Baltimore,  the  officers  of  Synod  autocratically  convened 
that  body  five  weeks  before  the  time  fixed  by  the  constitution. 
Shober  was  sent  to  Baltimore  as  delegate,  and  took  a  prominent 
part  in  drawing  up  the  "Planentwurf,"  the  tentative  consti- 
tution for  the  organization  of  a  General  Synod.  This  irregular 
meeting  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  was  later  on  known  as 
the  "Untimely  Synod."  It  provoked  much  ill  feeling  and  led 
to  the  organization  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  1820.  {Term. 
Rep.  1820,  49.)  At  this  "Untimely  Synod"  David  Henkel  was 
charged  with  teaching  transubstantiation,  because  he  had 
preached  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  his 
congregations.  Synod  found  him  guilty,  and  degraded  him  to 
the  rank  of  catechist  for  a  period  of  six  months.  Says  the 
Keport  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  1820:  "David  Henkel  was  to 
be  entitled  to  his  former  rank  in  office  only  when,  after  a  period 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  123 

of  six  months,  sufficient  written  evidence  should  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  President  that  peace  obtained  in  his  congrega- 
tions, and  that  no  important  accusation  was  lodged  against 
him  by  others,  especially  by  the  Reformed  [Presbyterians], 
whereupon  the  President  would  be  empowered  to  confer  on  him 
the  privileges  of  a  candidate  until  the  next  synod."  (18.)  The 
following  statement  of  the  same  Report  characterizes  the  doc- 
trinal attitude  of  President  Stork  and  other  leaders  of  Synod: 
"We  [the  Henkels]  have  written  evidence  that,  when  a  paper 
was  read  at  said  'Untimely  Synod'  containing  the  statement 
that  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  had  been  received  into 
the  divine  nature  (dass  die  Menschheit  Jesu  Christi  in  die  Gott- 
heit  sei  aufgenommen  worden ) ,  and  that  therefore  He  possessed 
all  the  divine  attributes,  the  President  [Stork]  declared  that 
he  could  not  believe  this.  And  when  it  was  said  that  such 
was  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  he  answered:  'Even  if  five 
hundred  Bibles  should  say  so,  he  would  not  believe  it!'  And 
to  our  knowledge  he  was  never  called  to  account  for  this  state- 
ment." (20.)  The  autocratic  actions  of  the  leaders  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  and  their  adherents  virtually  resulted 
in  a  rupture  of  Synod  in  the  same  year.  For  the  dissatisfied 
party  held  a  synod  of  their  own  at  Buffalo  Creek,  at  the  time 
specified  by  the  constitution,  and  ordained  Bell  and  David 
Henkel. 

73.  "Synod  of  Strife"  (Streitsynode).  —  The  meeting  at 
Lincolnton,  N".  C,  1820,  which  followed  the  "Untimely  Synod," 
was  marked  by  painful  scenes  and  altercations  and  the  final 
breach  between  the  majority,  who  were  resolved  to  unite  with 
the  General  Synod,  and  the  minority,  who  opposed  the  union 
and  accused  the  leader  not  only  of  high-handed,  autocratic 
procedure  and  usurpation  of  power  in  contravention  of  the 
constitution,  but  also  of  false  doctrine,  and  publicly  refused  to 
recognize  them  as  Lutherans.  On  Sunday,  May  28,  Synod  was 
opened  with  a  service  in  which  Stork  preached  German  and 
Bell  English.  Monday  morning  the  preachers,  delegates,  and 
a  great  multitude  of  people  from  the  neighborhood  returned 
to  the  church.  They  found  it  occupied  by  Pastors  Paul  Henkel, 
Philip  Henkel,  David  Henkel,  and  Bell,  who  refused  admission 
to  the  rest.    After  some  parliamenteering,  written  and  verbal, 


124  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

both  parties  entered  the  church.  The  Henkels  report  as  fol- 
lows :  "They  [the  opponents]  took  their  stand  on  the  fact  that 
the  majority  was  on  their  side  and  according  to  it  everything 
should  be  decided.  Accordingly,  before  they  came  to  us  in  the 
church,  they  first  delegated  one  of  their  preachers  with  two 
questions  directed  to  one  of  our  preachers.  The  first  was: 
'Whether  he  intended  to  separate  from  the  North  Carolina 
Synod?'  The  second:  'Whether  he  was  willing  to  be  governed 
by  a  majority  of  preachers  and  delegates  in  the  matters  dis- 
puted?' He,  giving  him  no  decisive  answer,  came  to  the  rest 
of  us  and  told  us.  We  answered  in  writing:  'That  we  neither 
intend  to  separate  ourselves  from  Synod,  nor  would  suffer  our- 
selves to  be  governed  by  a  majority;  but  that  we  wanted 
everything  investigated  and  decided  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  according  to  the  constitution 
or  order  of  our  church,  nothing  else.'  In  the  mean  time  the 
minister  delegated  came  to  us  where  we  were  gathered  and 
demanded  a  verbal  answer  to  the  same  questions.  We  then  gave 
this  answer  also  verbally,  whereupon  he  said  with  an  arrogant 
gesture  and  autocratic  tone:  'That  is  not  the  point;  I  only 
ask,  Do  you  want  to,  or  do  you  not  want  to?'  We  answered: 
'We  did  not  want  to.'  He  declared,  'That  is  all  I  desire  to 
know';  and  saying  which  he  rapidly  turned  about  and  hastily 
ran  away  from  us.  In  the  mean  time  the  multitude  of  our 
opponents  moved  toward  us,  proposing  the  same  questions. 
We  answered  as  before.  The  leaders  among  them  endeavored 
to  maintain  that,  in  order  to  decide  the  dispute,  we  were  not 
bound  to  the  constitution,  but  only  to  the  majority  of  the  votes 
of  the  preachers  and  delegates,  which  majority  they  had;  and 
that  it  was  reasonable  and  fair  for  us  to  act  according  to  it 
in  this  dispute.  But  we  thought  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  (being  assured,  as  we  were,  that  it  can 
be  proved  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible)  should  be  of  a  greater 
weight  to  us  than  the  voice  of  a  majority  of  men  who  are 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  and  order  of  our  Church.  After  a  brief 
altercation  of  this  kind  they  went  into  the  church,  and  we 
followed.  Here  the  President  [Stork],  in  a  long  speech  in  Ger- 
man, endeavored  to  prove  what  he  had  asserted  before.  The 
Secretary  [Shober]  made  a  still  longer  speech  in  English,  in 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  125 

which  he  endeavored  to  prove  that  we  were  not  at  all  bound 
to  act  according  to  the  constitution  or  order  of  our  Church; 
although  he  himself,  with  the  approval  of  Synod,  had  written 
the  constitution  and  had  it  printed,  this  was  not  done  with 
the  intention  of  making  it  a  rule  or  norm  by  which  we,  as 
members  of  Synod,  were  to  be  guided  in  our  transactions;  it 
was  merely  a  sort  of  draft  or  model  according  to  which,  in 
course  of  time,  one  might  formulate  a  good  constitution,  if  in 
the  future  such  should  become  necessary.  However,  it  was 
proved  [by  the  Henkels]  from  the  constitution  itself  that  it 
had  been  received  as  just  such  an  [official]  document,  sanc- 
tioned, after  previous  examination  and  approval  by  several 
ministers,  by  Synod  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  To  this  he 
[Shober]  answered  that  such  had  not  been  the  intention  of 
Synod.  Haste  and  lack  of  time  had  caused  him  to  write  it 
thus  without  previous  careful  consideration;  therefore,  now 
everything  had  to  be  governed  and  judged  according  to  the 
majority.  But  we  were  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  prove  to 
be  a  very  unreasonable  action  to  reject  a  constitution  which 
a  few  years  ago,  according  to  a  resolution  of  Synod,  had  been 
printed  and  bound  in  1,500  copies,  the  money  being  taken  from 
the  synodical  treasury,  and  sold  at  75  cts.  a  copy."  (Tenn.  Rep. 
1820,24.)  The  question  concerning  the  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution would,  no  doubt,  have  been  settled  in  favor  of  the 
Henkels,  if  they  had  not  opposed  the  leaders  in  their  union 
schemes  and  charged  them  with  false  doctrine  and  apostasy 
from  the  Lutheran  Church.  Says  the  aforementioned  Tennessee 
Report:  "Even  though  the  officers  with  their  adherents  (die 
alten  Herrn  Beamten  mit  ihrem  Zugehoer)  could  perhaps  them- 
selves have  thought  so  far  [as  to  realize  the  arbitrariness  of 
their  procedure  with  reference  to  the  'Untimely  Synod'],  yet 
the  desire  to  organize  the  General  Synod  and  to  bring  about 
a  union  with  all  religious  bodies,  especially  with  the  Presby- 
terians, was  so  strong  as  to  outweigh  everything  else"  [even 
an  imminent  breach].  The  leaders  finally  admitted  that  both 
parties  had  erred,  and  declared  their  willingness  to  pardon 
everything  if  the  minority  would  reunite  with  them.  The 
Henkels,  however,  declared  that  they  could  have  no  fellowship 
with  people  who  were  addicted  to  false  doctrines  concerning 


126  EARLY  HISTOEY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  They  also  declared  their  impatience 
with  the  contemplated  "general  union  of  all  religious  denomi- 
nations," saying  that  such  a  union  was  no  more  possible  than 
to  bring  together  as  one  peaceful  flock  into  one  fold  "sheep, 
goats,  lambs,  cows,  oxen,  horses,  bears,  wolves,  wild  cats,  foxes, 
and  swine."  At  this  juncture  one  of  the  officers,  dissolving 
the  meeting  and  leaving  the  church,  exclaimed:  "Whoever  is 
a  true  Lutheran,  may  he  come  with  us  to  the  hotel  of  J.  H.; 
there  we  will  begin  our  Synod!"  The  minority  answered: 
"Whoever  wants  to  be  a  true  fanatic  ( Schwaermer ) ,  may  he 
go  along;  for  you  are  no  real  Lutheran  preachers:  you  are 
fanatics  (Schwaermer)  and  to  them  you  belong!"  A  young 
teacher  added :  "According  to  the  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture, 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  regard  you  as  anything  but  false 
teachers."  Then  one  of  the  old  ministers,  turning  toward  the 
assembly,  said:  "Now  you  yourselves  have  heard  the  boldness 
and  impertinence  of  this  young  man,  who  charges  us,  old  and 
respectable  ministers  that  we  are,  with  false  doctrine."  Similar 
utterances  were  made  by  others.  The  report  concludes:  "How- 
ever, they  left  the  church  without  defending  themselves  against 
such  accusations,  except  that  one  of  the  old  ministers  said  at 
the  exit  of  the  church  that  he  was  much  astonished.  But  we 
could  not  help  that."  (Tenn.  Report  1820,  27.)  As  Bell  joined 
the  Shober  party,  his  ordination  at  Buffalo  Creek  was  declared 
constitutional  and  ratified  as  valid.  Shober  now  reported  on 
his  cordial  reception  by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  and  on  the 
transaction  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  "Planentwurf" 
for  the  contemplated  organization  of  the  General  Synod.  The 
document,  after  its  individual  paragraphs  had  been  read  and 
discussed,  was  adopted  by  the  North  Carolina  Synod  by 
a  majority  of  15  to  6  —  a  result  which  Shober  had  forestalled 
in  a  letter  to  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  assembled  at  Lancaster, 
stating  "that  the  greatest  part  of  the  members  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  had  adopted  the  so-called  Planentwurf,"  and 
expressing  the  hope  that  the  General  Synod  might  be  estab- 
lished. After  adopting  the  "Planentwurf,"  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  elected  Pastors  Shober  and  Peter  Schmucker  delegates 
to  the  convention  of  the  General  Synod,  which  was  to  convene 


EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  127 

at  Hagerstown,  Md.,  October  22,  1820.  Only  a  few  ministers 
from  Tennessee  being  present,  the  Henkels  resolved  not  to 
transact  any  business  at  this  time.   (27.) 

74.  Doctrinal  Dispute  at  Lincolnton.  —  The  points  dis- 
puted at  Lincolnton  did  not  only  refer  to  the  autocratic  actions 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Synod  and  their  union  schemes,  but  also 
to  the  doctrines  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  regarding 
which  the  minority  charged  Stork,  Shober,  and  their  followers 
with  holding  un-Lutheran  and  anticonfessional  views.  The  dis- 
cussions on  these  doctrines  caused  James  Hill,  a  Methodist 
preacher  who  was  present,  to  address  a  letter  to  Synod  in  which 
he  said:  "For  almost  thirteen  years  which  I  have  spent  in 
this  county  [Lincoln  Co.,  N.  C,  where  David  Henkel  preached], 
I  have  understood  that  the  greatest  number  of  your  preachers 
in  the  county  have  taught  that  the  baptism  of  water  effects 
regeneration,  and  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  received 
bodily  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  that 
these  doctrines,  being  so  generally  taught  and  confessedly  be- 
lieved, confirmed  me  in  the  conviction  that  they  are  the  ortho- 
dox doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Last  Monday  [at  the 
discussion  on  floor  of  Synod],  however,  I  discovered,  or  believed 
to  discover,  that  some  members  of  your  Rev.  Synod  entertained 
different  views.  .  .  .  Now,  in  order  that  I  may  know  how  to 
conduct  myself  in  the  future  toward  so  respectable  a  part  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  [North  Carolina  Synod],  I  request  the 
opinion  of  your  Synod  on  the  above  points."  The  answer, 
formulated  by  R.  J.  Miller  and  Peter  Schmucker,  and  approved 
of  by  the  ministerium,  was:  "We  do  not  say  that  all  who  are 
baptized  with  water  are  regenerated  and  converted  to  God,  so 
that  they  are  saved  without  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
or  in  other  words,  without  faith  in  Christ."  "We  do  not  be- 
lieve and  teach  that  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  are  bodily  received  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy 
Supper,  but  that  the  true  believer  receives  and  enjoys  it  spirit- 
ually together  with  all  saving  gifts  of  His  suffering  and  death, 
by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  (681.)  According  to  the  report  of 
the  Henkels,  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as  taught  by  the 
Presbyterians  was  also  touched  upon,  for  in  it  we  read:  "One 
of  the  members  declared,  and  sought  to  maintain,  that  it  was 


128  EABLY  HISTOBY  OF  AMEBICAN  LTJTHEBANISM. 

impossible  for  a  man  to  fall  from  the  grace  of  God  after  he 
had  once  been  truly  converted.  Another  denied  the  doctrine 
of  Baptism  as  laid  down  in  our  catechism  and  in  the  Second 
and  Ninth  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  offer  was 
made  to  a  third  to  prove  to  him  from  his  own  handwriting 
that  he  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  set  forth 
in  the  Tenth  Article  [of  the  Augsburg  Confession! .  They 
offered  to  have  the  letter  read;  but  our  opponents  did  not 
agree  to  this.  A  book  was  placed  before  him  and  a  passage 
was  pointed  out  to  him,  in  order  that  he  might  read  what 
Luther,  of  blessed  memory,  himself  teaches  on  this  question. 
He  closed  it  angrily  and  pushed  it  away.  A  fourth  put  the 
question:  'Can  I  not  be  a  [Presbyterian]  predestinarian  and 
also  a  Lutheran?'  For  he  believed  that  the  [Presbyterian]  doc- 
trine of  predestination  could  be  proven  from  the  Bible.  He  re- 
ceived the  answer:  'If  he  believed  as  the  Predestinarians  be- 
lieve, then  he  belonged  to  them,  and  might  go  to  them,  it  did 
not  concern  us.'  —  For  these  reasons  we  believed  to  be  all  the 
more  certain  that  they  were  not  true  Evangelical  Lutheran 
preachers,  and  this  we  also  told  them  without  reservation." 
{Tenn.  Rep.  1820,  24  f.)  In  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  re- 
generation by  Baptism,  the  Henkels  also  referred  to  the  error 
of  the  enthusiasts,  gaining  ground  increasingly  within  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  viz.,  that  conversion  and  regeneration 
was  effected  by  anxious  shrieking,  united  praying,  and  the 
exertion  of  all  powers  of  the  body  and  soul.  ( 32  f . )  The  rup- 
ture, then,  was  inevitable:  the  doctrinal  and  spiritual  gap  be- 
tween Shober  and  his  compeers  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Henkels  and  their  adherents  on  the  other  hand  being  just  as 
wide  and  insurmountable  as  that  between  Zwingli  and  Luther 
at  Marburg  1529.  The  leaders  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
were  not  only  unionistic,  but,  in  more  than  one  respect,  Re- 
formed theologians.  The  ministers  who  soon  after  united  in 
organizing  the  Tennessee  Synod  declared  with  respect  to  the 
North  Carolina  Synod:  "If  they  would  adopt  the  name  of 
what  we  believe  they  really  are,  and  in  this  way  withdraw 
from  us,  then  we  and  other  people  would  know  what  our  re- 
lation was  toward  them.  But  if  they  intend  to  remain  in  our 
household,  they  shall  also  submit  to  its  authority  [Augsburg 
Confession],  or  we  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  them."   (31.) 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  129 

GOTTLIEB  SHOBER. 

75.  Harbors  Reformed  Views  on  Lord's  Supper.  — 
The  charges  against  David  Henkel  as  to  his  teaching  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  referred  to  above,  had 
been  lodged  with  Pastor  Shober,  then  secretary  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod.  When  David  Henkel  complained  that  his  ac- 
cusers were  not  named,  Shober,  who  had  never  forsaken  his 
Moravian  views,  wrote  him  a  letter,  dated  October  20,  1818, 
which  at  the  same  time  reveals  that,  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
his  were  the  views  of  the  Reformed.  For  here  we  read :  "Your 
very  long  epistle,  proving  that  Christ  is  with  His  body  every- 
where present,  is  excellent  on  paper,  but  not  so  in  the  pulpit, 
where  seven-eighths  of  the  hearers  will  gaze  at  the  profound 
erudition  and  one-eighth  of  such  as  reason  will  shake  heads  at 
a  thing  to  be  believed,  but  not  explainable,  and  to  none  will  it 
effect  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  spiritual  regeneration  and 
of  adopting  Him  as  their  God  and  Savior  crucified."  "I  must 
assure  you  that  creditable  people  of  our  Church  and  the  Re- 
formed have  not  only  heard  you  advance  that  whosoever  is  bap- 
tized and  partakes  of  the  Supper  wants  no  other  and  further 
repentance,  but  also  that  whosoever  teaches  other  doctrine,  he 
is  a  false  teacher.  This,  my  dear  sir,  is  making  people  secure 
in  forms  and  not  in  realities.  How  easy  is  it  to  go  to  heaven, 
for  an  adulterous  heart  to  be  absolved  by  Mr.  Henkel,  and  as 
a  seal  to  receive  from  Mr.  Henkel  the  Sacrament,  who  by  his 
few  words  made  bread  body  and  wine  blood  —  and  such  a  holy 
divine  body,  without  limitation  of  space,  as  is  compelled  to 
enter  into  all  substances  and  beings,  whether  they  will  or  not, 
so  that  a  Belial,  when  he  receives  it,  must  thereby  be  made  an 
heir  of  heaven.  No,  no,  I  cannot  believe  in  such  theories,  and 
as  I  told  you  once  at  my  home  when  you  returned  from  Vir- 
ginia and  asked  me  on  that  subject,  so  I  think  yet,  and  say 
that  when  Mr.  Henkel  consecrates  bread  and  wine,  it  is  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Savior  to  such  with  whom  He  can  unite;  but 
to  those  who  are  not  of  pure  heart  and  yet  partake,  and  that 
with  reverence,  the  spirituality  of  the  true  essence  does  not 
unite  with  their  souls;  they  eat  bread  and  wine,  for  they  have 
not  such  a  faith,  love,  and  humility  as  enables  them  to  possess 
the  divine  essence.    And  those  that  partake  without  reverence, 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  9 


130  EAELY  HISTORY  OP  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

light-minded,  and  during  the  ceremony  disdain  the  simplicity 
of  the  institution,  mock  and  deride  it,  they  bring  judgment 
upon  themselves  for  eating  and  drinking  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments, but  not  for  partaking  [the]  body  and  blood  of  Jesus,  for 
they  have  not  partaken  thereof.  God  and  Belial  cannot  unite. 
Do,  pray,  reflect  deeply  on  the  subject,  and  assure  to  all  peace 
in  heart,  and  those  of  contrite  spirit  that  the  Lord  in  the 
Sacrament  will  unite  with  them  spiritually  and  seal  their 
heavenly  inheritance.  But  invite  them  all  to  come  and  par- 
take that  revere  the  Savior  as  God,  and  assure  them  that,  if 
they  approach  with  reverence,  it  may  be  made  the  means  of 
viewing  the  condescending  love  of  God  ready  to  unite  with 
them,  and  their  own  depravity,  which  will  or  may  make  them 
cry,  and,  if  pure  in  heart,  obtain  mercy." 

76.  Slandering-  David  Henkel.  —  What  the  Henkels,  as 
early  as  1809,  had  taught  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  appears  from 
a  pamphlet  published  in  that  year  at  New  Market,  in  the 
printery  of  Henkel.  Here  we  read  as  follows:  "But  Paul 
teaches  us  that  the  bread  which  we  break  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  cup  of  bless- 
ing with  which  we  bless  is  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ.  If  our  bread  and  wine  has  communion  with  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  then  it  also  must  be  what  our  dear 
Lord  Himself  calls  it  in  the  institution:  His  body  and  His 
blood."  (680.)  This  genuinely  Lutheran  doctrine  it  was  that 
also  David  Henkel  had  been  preaching,  and  which  his  opponents 
who  charged  him  with  Roman  aberrations  called  transubstan- 
tiation,  impanation,  or  consubstantiation.  And  true  to  his  Re- 
formed traditions,  Shober  continued  in  his  endeavors  to  slander 
David  Henkel  as  a  Crypto-Papist.  This  compelled  Henkel  to 
make  the  following  explanation  in  1827 :  "The  ministry  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  are  charged  with  denying  the  most  im- 
portant doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  have  been  re- 
quested to  come  to  a  reciprocal  trial,  which  they  have  obsti- 
nately refused.  .  .  .  Those  ministers,  as  it  plainly  appears, 
entertain  a  strong  personal  prejudice  against  me,  and  have 
asserted  many  charges  with  respect  to  my  personal  conduct, 
as  well  as  with  respect  to  my  doctrines.  What  shall  I  say? 
Have  I  not  heretofore  offered  them  a  reciprocal  trial,  even  as 
it  respects  personal  conduct?     Why  did  they  not  accede  to  it? 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANIS1I.  131 

They  are  truly  injuring  their  own  reputation  when  they  apeak 
many  evil  things  of  me,  in  order  to  render  me  ridiculous,  and 
an  object  of  persecution,  and  yet  are  unwilling  to  confront  me 
and  prove  their  accusations  by  legal  testimony.  ...  I  wish 
a  reciprocal  forgiveness.  But  as  it  respects  the  difference  with 
respect  to  doctrines,  it  is  necessary  to  be  discussed,  as  that 
respects  the  Lutheran  community.  Mr.  Shober  has  most  con- 
fidently charged  me  with  teaching  'that  if  a  man  only  is  bap- 
tized and  partakes  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  [he]  is  safe;  and 
that  I  call  those  enthusiasts  and  bigots  who  insist  upon  further 
repentance  and  conversion.'  Again  he  charges  me  with  openly 
supporting  the  Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  of 
forgiving  sins  like  the  papists  pretend  to  do.  Now  I  positively 
deny  these  charges  as  being  true,  and  if  Mr.  Shober  does  not 
confront  me  and  prove  these  charges  by  a  legal  testimony  or 
testimonies,  what  can  I  otherwise,  agreeably  to  the  truth,  call 
him  but  a  calumniator,  or  one  who  bears  false  witness  against 
his  neighbor?  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man  in  the  United 
States  (or,  at  least,  I  have  never  heard  of  any)  teaches  that, 
if  a  person  only  is  baptized  and  receives  the  Lord's  Supper, 
[he]  is  safe  exclusive  of  repentance.  What  a  puerile  conduct 
some  men  manifest  in  trying  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  with 
which  Mr.  Shober  has  charged  me  is  erroneous,  when  no  man 
nor  class  of  men  contend  for  it!  They  are  all  the  while  fight- 
ing their  own  shadows.  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble 
to  read  my  book  entitled,  'Answer  to  Mr.  Joseph  Moore,  the 
Methodist;  with  a  Few  Fragments  on  the  Doctrine  of  Justi- 
fication,' he  may  readily  see  whether  I  maintain  the  doctrines 
with  which  I  am  charged,  or  whether  I  deny  regeneration  and 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Again,  as  little  as  I  believe 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  so  little  do  I  believe  that 
of  consubstantiation.  A  perusal  of  the  book  just  now  men- 
tioned will  also  satisfy  the  reader  on  this  subject."  (Tenn.  Rep. 
1827,  48.) 

NORTH  CAROLINA  RUPTURE. 

77.  Charges  Preferred  by  Tennessee  Synod.  —  The  re- 
port of  the  committee  which  the  Tennessee  Synod  appointed  in 
1824  to  discuss  the  doctrinal  differences  with  the  North  Caro- 
lina  Synod  charged   them  with  the   following   statements   of 


132  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

un-Lutheran  doctrine  which,  they  quoted  from  their  writings: 
"1.  'Jesus  says,  without  being  baptized;  and  furthermore  He 
says :  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  —  hence,  bap- 
tized or  not  baptized,  faith  saves  us.'  See  the  committee's 
appendix  to  the  proceedings  of  said  North  Carolina  connection 
of  the  year  1822,  p.  4,  §  2.  The  President  of  said  connection 
[Stork]  says  in  his  English  Review,  p.  46,  'that  none  but  idiots 
could  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ  fills  all  space.'  See  also 
their  proceedings  of  1820,  p.  18."  {Term.  Rep.  1824,  Appendix.) 
Accordingly  the  charges  lodged  by  Tennessee  against  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  were  that  they  rejected  the  distinctive  doc- 
trines of  Lutheranism.  In  keeping  herewith  Tennessee  refused 
to  acknowledge  the  North  Carolina  Synod  as  Lutheran,  and  de- 
clined to  grant  her  this  title,  speaking  of  her  as  a  connection 
"which  calls  itself  a  Lutheran  synod."  In  1825  the  Tennessee 
Synod  declared:  "We  must  here  observe  that  Ave  cannot  con- 
sistently grant  to  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina  this  title 
[Lutheran],  because  we  maintain  that  they  departed  from  the 
Lutheran  doctrine."  (6.)  The  same  convention  headed  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  North  Carolina  Synod  as  follows:  "To  the 
Reverend  Synod  of  North  Carolina,  who  assume  the  title  Lu- 
theran, but  which  we  at  this  time,  for  reason  aforesaid,  dis- 
pute. Well  beloved  in  the  Lord,  according  to  your  per- 
sons!" etc.  (7.)  According  to  a  letter  of  Ambrosius  Henkel, 
March  24,  1824,  Riemenschneider  declared:  "The  North  Caro- 
lina Synod  must  have  deviated  not  only  from  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  but  from  the  very  words  of  Christ  as  well,  as  I  have 
lately,  in  one  of  their  publications,  read  the  horrible  words: 
Baptized  or  not  baptized,  faith  saves  us.  What  is  that  except 
to  declare  Baptism  unnecessary?  One  would  think  that  these 
people  were  crazy  (man  sollte  denken,  diese  Menschen  waeren 
verrueckt ) ."  The  North  Carolina  Synod,  however,  in  spite 
of  their  avowed  unionistic  and  essentially  Reformed  attitude, 
boldly  insisted  that  they  were  the  "true  Lutherans"  —  a  bit  of 
bravado  imitated  several  decades  later  by  Benjamin  Kurtz,  one 
of  the  Reformed  theologians  of  the  General  Synod,  over  against 
Missouri  and  other  synods  loyal  to  the  Lutheran  Confessions. 

78.     "Lutheraner"    on    Division    of    North    Carolina 
Synod.  —  The  first  unbiased  Lutheran  estimate  and,  in  all 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  133 

essential  points,  correct  presentation  of  the  division  in  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  is  found  in  the  Lutheraner  of  June  5, 
1855.  Here  Theo.  Brohm,  who  attended  the  thirty-fourth  con- 
vention of  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  1854  as  the  representative 
of  the  Missouri  Synod,  writes  as  follows:  "German  Lutheran 
congregations  had  been  organized  in  the  State  of  North  Caro- 
lina as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  preceding  century.  About 
1798  the  first  attempts  were  made  to  unite  these  congregations 
by  a  regulated  sy nodical  bond.  However,  the  removal  of  a  num- 
ber of  pastors  resulted  in  the  decay  of  the  church  life  in  this 
field.  After  a  number  of  years  the  congregations  increased 
again,  and  so  the  foundation  for  the  Ev.  Luth.  Synod  of  North 
Carolina  was  laid  in  1803.  Paul  Henkel  was  among  the  charter 
members.  The  beginning  was  weak,  but  the  good  cause  pro- 
gressed. Gradually  Lutheran  congregations  were  organized 
also  in  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  and  in  Tennessee,  uniting 
with  this  synod.  As  most  of  the  pastors  had  come  from  Penn- 
sylvania, cordial  unity  obtained  between  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod  and  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina.  In  the  course  of 
time,  however,  Satan  succeeded  in  sowing  tares  among  the 
wheat.  Two  opposing  parties  sprang  up  in  the  synod.  The 
one,  to  which  the  great  majority  belonged,  found  its  expression 
and  embodiment  in  the  General  Synod,  and  is  too  well  known 
to  our  readers  to  require  further  characterization  at  this  place. 
The  other  was  the  staunch  and  truly  Lutheran  party,  to  which, 
indeed,  but  a  small  minority  adhered.  The  majority,  in  agree- 
ment with  a  number  of  influential  men  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  proposed  the  idea  of  a  General  Synod,  which,  according 
to  their  view,  was  to  embody  not  only  the  various  Lutheran 
synods  of  this  country,  but,  if  possible,  all  other  religious 
bodies  as  well.  While  the  true  Lutherans  could  see  nothing 
but  mischief  arising  from  this  General  Synod,  the  majority 
entered  upon  this  unhappy  scheme  with  great  enthusiasm. 
And,  in  order  to  carry  out  their  plan,  without  the  let  or 
hindrance  of  the  staunch  Lutherans,  the  friends  of  the  General 
Synod  convened  a  meeting  of  synod  in  1819  at  an  unlawful 
time,  and  also  without  notifying  all  pastors,  especially  those 
of  Tennessee.  Delegates  were  elected  to  the  convention  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  in  Baltimore,  where  the  plan  for  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  was  to  be  matured.     In  order  to  destroy  the  in- 


134  EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

fluence  of  one  of  the  most  decided  opponents,  the  young  David 
Henkel,  he  was  suspended  from  office  for  a  period  of  six  months, 
ostensibly  because  he  was  spreading  Roman  Catholic  doctrines, 
which  in  reality,  however,  were  none  but  pure  Lutheran  doc- 
trines, especially  those  of  the  power  of  Baptism  and  of  the 
presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
When  the  Synod  met  at  Lincolnton,  N.  C,  in  the  following 
year,  those  members  of  Synod  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
resolutions  of  the  previous  year  demanded  a  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  mooted  questions.  In  answer  reference  was  made 
to  the  majority  vote,  which  decision  was  to  be  final.  Hostility 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  especially  to  the  doctrines  of 
Baptism  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  well  as  the  tendency  to 
unite  with  all  religious  bodies,  became  more  and  more  ap- 
parent. And  when  the  plan  of  the  General  Synod  met  with  the 
determined  opposition  of  the  staunch  Lutherans,  the  other 
party  dissolved  the  meeting  and  made  the  beginning  of  the 
General  Synod.  Those  pastors  who  remained  faithful  to  the 
Lutheran  Confessions,  six  in  number,  now  united  and  organized 
the  so-called  Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod."  (11,  165.) 

LUTHERANS  IN  VIRGINIA. 

79.  G.  Henkel,  Stoever,  Klug  at  Spottsylvania.  —  In 
1754  Muhlenberg  and  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  sent  an  appeal 
to  both  London  and  Halle  in  which  they  state:  "Many  thou- 
sands of  Lutheran  people  are  scattered  through  North  Caro- 
lina, Virginia,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  etc."  When 
the  Indians  attacked  New  Bern,  N.  C,  shortly  after  it  had  been 
founded  in  1710  by  650  Palatines  and  Swiss,  twelve  Lutheran 
families  escaped  from  the  massacre  and  sought  refuge  in  Vir- 
ginia. Here  Governor  Spottwood  allotted  them  homes  in  Spott- 
sylvania County.  Gerhard  Henkel  is  said  to  have  been  their 
first  pastor;  but  he  served  them  for  a  short  time  only.  Their 
number  was  increased  by  a  colony  of  Alsatians  and  Palatinates. 
They  had  started  for  Pennsylvania,  but,  after  various  hard- 
ships on  the  voyage,  in  which  many  of  their  companions  died, 
were  purchased  by  Governor  Spottwood,  and  sent  by  him  to 
his  lands  in  the  same  locality,  on  the  upper  Rappahannock, 
"twelve  German  miles  from  the  sea."   (Jacobs,  184.)     In  1728, 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  135 

after  a  vacancy  of  sixteen  years,  Henkel  was  succeeded  by  John 
Caspar  Stoever,  Sr.,  born  in  Frankenberg,  Hesse,  who  came  to 
America  with  his  younger  relative  of  the  same  name,  the  latter 
being  active  for  many  years  as  a  missionary  in  Pennsylvania. 
Stoever's  salary  in  Virginia  was  three  thousand  pounds  of 
tobacco  a  year.  In  1734  he  and  two  members  of  his  congrega- 
tion, Michael  Schmidt  and  Michael  Holden,  went  to  Europe  to 
collect  a  fund  for  the  endowment  of  their  church.  "Because 
the  congregation,"  as  an  old  report  has  it,  "ardently  desires 
that  the  Evangelical  truth  should  not  be  extinguished  with  his 
death,  but  be  preserved  to  them  and  their  descendants,  the  said 
preacher,  Rev.  Stoever,  toward  the  close  of  the  year  1734,  .  .  . 
undertook  a  voyage  to  Europe  to  collect  a  fund  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  their  service,  the  building  of  a  church  and  school, 
and  the  endowment  of  the  ministry."  (G.,  115.)  In  London 
they  were  cordially  received  by  Ziegenhagen,  and  recommended 
to  Germany  and  Holland.  Besides  a  large  amount  of  money, 
they  procured  a  library  of  theological  books.  George  Samuel 
Klug  offered  his  services  as  a  pastor,  and,  after  his  ordination 
at  Danzig,  August  30,  1736,  proceeded  to  Virginia  with  one  of 
the  laymen.  After  completing  his  collections,  Stoever  returned, 
in  1838,  but  died  at  sea.  The  contributions  which  Stoever  had 
collected  amounted  to  three  thousand  pounds,  one-third  of 
which  paid  the  expenses,  and  the  rest  the  building  of  a  chapel 
(Hebron  Church)  and  the  purchase  of  farmlands  and  slaves. 
Muhlenberg,  Sr.,  wrote:  "It  is  said  to  be  a  profitable  planta- 
tion, and  owns  several  slaves  to  till  the  land."  (G.,  606.) 
Pastor  Klug,  who,  in  order  to  relieve  the  monotony  of  his 
isolation,  made  occasional  visits  to  the  Lutheran  ministers  in 
Pennsylvania,  wrote  in  1749  that  "the  congregation  was  not  in 
the  least  burdened  by  his  support."  However,  the  endowment 
of  the  church  seems  to  have  been  a  hindrance  rather  than  an 
advantage.  The  congregation  lost  many  members  to  the 
Dunkards.  Klug  continued  his  ministry  till  1761,  when  he 
was  succeeded  by  Schwarbach,  and  later  by  Frank,  both  of 
whom  were  licensed  at  Culpeper,  the  latter  for  three  years, 
beginning  with  1775.  Probably  also  Peter  Muhlenberg  preached 
in  the  old  Hebron  Church.  Later  on  Paul  Henkel,  when  active 
as  a  missionary  in  Virginia,  had  the  congregation  under  hia 
supervision. 


136  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM. 

80.  Peter  Muhlenberg  and  J.  N.  Schmucker  at  Wood- 
stock. —  Many  of  the  more  enterprising  of  the  Germans  in 
Pennsylvania,  notably  in  Montgomery,  Berks,  Lancaster,  and 
York  Counties,  pressed  toward  the  frontiers  of  their  State,  and 
then  followed  the  Cumberland  Valley  into  Maryland  and  far 
beyond  into  the  Shenandoah  Valley  of  Virginia,  their  number 
being  constantly  increased  by  immigrants  from  Germany.  To 
supply  their  needs,  Peter  Gabriel  Muhlenberg,  in  1772,  was 
sent  to  Virginia,  Woodstock  (Muellerstadt)  being  his  home 
and  the  center  of  his  field.  Though  serving  practically  none 
but  German  Lutherans,  he  sought  and  secured  the  ordination 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  order  to  obtain  legal  recognition 
of  his  marriages.  In  Virginia  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
was  firmly  established,  and  dissenters  were  compelled  to  pay 
an  annual  tribute  to  the  established  preachers.  Says  Muhlen- 
berg, Sr.:  "If  dissenting  parties  were  married  by  their  own 
pastors,  this  was  not  legal,  and  they  could  not  get  off  any 
cheaper  than  by  paying  the  marriage  dues  to  the  established 
county  preacher  and  obtaining  a  marriage  certificate  from  him." 
(G.,  606.)  Together  with  W.White,  afterward  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  Peter  Muhlen- 
berg was  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  after  he  had  been 
examined  and  had  subscribed  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  By 
the  indifferentistic  Germans  and  Swedes  of  those  days  such 
ordinations  were  generally  regarded  as  a  favor  and  comity  from 
the  Episcopalians  rather  than  a  humiliation  and  denial  on  the 
part  of  the  Lutherans.  Dr.  Kunze  says:  "The  bishops  of  Lon- 
don have  never  made  a  difficulty  to  ordain  Lutheran  divines, 
when  called  to  congregations  which,  on  account  of  being  con- 
nected with  English  Episcopalians,  made  this  ordination  requi- 
site. Thus  by  bishops  of  London  the  following  Lutheran  minis- 
ters were  ordained:  Bryselius,  Peter  Muhlenberg,  Illing,  Hou- 
seal,  and  Wagner.  The  last-mentioned  was  called,  after  having 
obtained  this  ordination,  to  an  Ev.  Lutheran  congregation  in 
the  Margraviate  of  Anspach  in  Germany."  (Jacobs,  285.)  Peter 
Muhlenberg  viewed  his  Episcopal  ordination  as  a  purely  civil 
affair,  and,  though  claimed  by  the  Episcopalians,  he  always  re- 
garded himself  as  a  Lutheran.  He  died  ( 1807 )  with  the  con- 
viction that  he  had  never  been  anything  but  a  Lutheran.  In 
a  circular  to  the  Lutheran   churches   of   Philadelphia,  dated 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  137 

March  14,  1804,  he  said:  "Brethren,  we  have  been  born,  bap- 
tized, and  brought  up  in  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 
Many  of  us  have  vowed  before  God  and  the  congregation,  at 
our  confirmation,  to  live  and  die  by  this  doctrine  of  our  Church. 
In  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  we  have  our  joy,  our  brightest 
joy;  we  prize  it  the  more  highly  since,  in  our  opinion,  it  agrees 
most  with  the  doctrine  of  the  faithful  and  true  witness  of  our 
Savior  Jesus  Christ.  We  wish  nothing  more  than  that  we  and 
our  children  and  our  children's  children  and  all  our  posterity 
may  remain  faithful  to  this  doctrine."  (284.)  Among  the 
friends  of  Peter  Muhlenberg  at  Woodstock  were  George  Wash- 
ington and  the  orator  of  the  Revolution,  Patrick  Henry.  The 
story  is  well  known  how,  after  preaching  a  sermon  on  the 
seriousness  of  the  times  and  pronouncing  the  benediction,  he 
cast  off  his  clerical  robe,  appearing  before  his  congregation  in 
the  glittering  uniform  of  a  colonel.  During  the  long  vacancy 
which  followed  Wildbahn,  Goering,  and  J.  D.  Kurtz  preached 
occasionally  in  the  old  church  at  Woodstock.  In  1805  John 
Nicholas  Schmucker  took  charge  of  the  field.  He  was  a  popular 
preacher,  using,  almost  exclusively,  also  in  the  pulpit,  the  Penn- 
sylvania German.  "Zu  so  Kinner,"  he  said,  "muss  mer  so  pred- 
dige."   (G.,  608.) 

81.  Patriotic  Activity  of  Peter  Muhlenberg.  —  Peter 
was  the  oldest  son  of  H.  M.  Muhlenberg.  He  was  sent  to  the 
University  of  Halle  for  his  theological  training,  where  his  in- 
dependent spirit  soon  brought  him  into  trouble.  At  one  occa- 
sion he  resented  an  insult  on  the  part  of  his  instructor  with 
a  blow.  Forestalling  expulsion,  the  young  man  enlisted  in 
a  German  regiment,  in  which  he  was  known  as  "Teufel  Piet." 
After  two  years  of  military  training  he  returned  to  America, 
and  consented  to  study  theology  under  his  father.  After 
a  short  pastorate  in  New  Jersey  he  was  transferred  to  Wood- 
stock. He  traveled  extensively  through  the  Shenandoah  Val- 
ley and  the  mountains  to  the  west,  preaching  wherever  Lu- 
therans could  be  found.  When  the  Revolution  began,  Peter 
Muhlenberg  roused  the  patriotism  of  his  fellow-Germans  in 
Virginia,  who  were  much  better  established  and  in  closer  touch 
with  their  English  neighbors  than  those  in  North  Carolina, 
many  of  them  being  acquainted  with  Lord  Fairfax  and  George 


138  EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Washington  and  holding  civil  offices  in  their  communities. 
Muhlenberg  brought  about,  and  was  chairman  of,  the  Wood- 
stock Convention,  June  16,  1774,  at  which  the  Germans  united 
with  their  Scotch-Irish  neighbors  in  a  declaration  against 
British  tyranny,  nearly  a  year  before  the  famous  Mecklenburg 
Declaration  in  May,  1775.  The  resolutions  adopted  at  Wood- 
stock were  prepared  by  a  committee,  of  which  Muhlenberg  was 
chairman.  They  read,  in  part,  as  follows:  "That  we  will  pay 
due  submission  to  such  acts  of  government  as  His  Majesty  has 
a  right  by  law  to  exercise  over  his  subjects,  and  to  such  only." 
"That  it  is  the  inherent  right  of  British  subjects  to  be  gov- 
erned and  taxed  by  representatives  chosen  by  themselves  only, 
and  that  every  act  of  the  British  Parliament  respecting  the 
internal  policy  of  America  is  a  dangerous  and  unconstitutional 
invasion  of  our  rights  and  privileges."  "That  the  enforcing  of 
the  execution  of  the  said  act  of  Parliament  by  military  power 
will  have  a  necessary  tendency  to  cause  a  civil  war,  thereby 
dissolving  that  union  which  has  so  long  happily  subsisted  be- 
tween the  mother  country  and  her  colonies;  and  that  we  will 
most  heartily  and  unanimously  concur  with  our  suffering 
brethren  of  Boston  and  every  other  part  of  North  America 
that  may  be  the  immediate  victim  of  tyranny,  as  promoting 
all  proper  measures  to  avert  such  dreadful  calamities  to  pro- 
cure a  redress  of  our  grievances  and  to  secure  our  common 
liberties."  After  the  Woodstock  meeting  Muhlenberg  was 
elected  a  member  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia  and 
also  of  the  State  Convention.  He  was  appointed  colonel  of 
the  Eighth  regiment,  afterwards  known  as  the  German  regi- 
ment, which  he  also  raised.  After  receiving  his  commission, 
Muhlenberg  preached  the  famous  war  sermon  which  Colonel 
Eoosevelt,  several  years  ago,  repeated  in  Collier's  Weekly,  in 
his  plea  for  fair  play  for  the  Germans.  Beneath  his  black 
pulpit  robe,  which  is  to-day  in  the  possession  of  the  Henkel 
Brothers'  Publishing  House,  Peter  Muhlenberg  wore  his  uni- 
form. In  his  sermon  he  spoke  of  the  duties  citizens  owe  to 
their  country.  In  closing  he  said :  "There  is  a  time  for  preach- 
ing and  praying;  but  there  is  also  a  time  of  fighting;  now 
this  time  has  come!"  The  service  ended,  he  retired  to  the 
sacristy  and  came  out  the  colonel.  He  made  a  speech  from  the 
front  steps  of  his  church  and  began  the  enlistment,  300  signing. 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  139 

In  the  war  he  distinguished  himself  at  Brandywine,  German- 
town,  Monmouth,  and  Yorktown,  and  was  advanced  to  the  rank 
of  Major-General.  The  war  over,  Peter  Muhlenberg  served  as 
Speaker  of  the  House  in  Congress  and  afterwards  as  United 
States  Senator.  (Luth.  Church  Review  1919,  160  ff.) 

82.  Chr.  Streit  at  Winchester,  Henkel  at  New  Market. 
—  In  1785  Christian  Streit,  who  had  been  active  in  New 
Hanover,  Pa.,  since  1782,  came  to  Winchester,  Va.,  where  he 
served  till  1812.  Here  the  foundations  for  a  church  had  been 
laid  in  1764.  According  to  a  document  found  in  the  corner- 
stone, the  congregation,  then  numbering  33  members,  declared: 
"This  temple  is  dedicated  to  the  Triune  God  and  the  Lutheran 
religion;  all  sects,  whatsoever  their  names  may  be,  departing 
from,  or  not  fully  agreeing  with,  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  re- 
ligion, shall  forever  be  excluded  from  it."  This  document  was 
signed  by  Caspar  Kirchner,  then  pastor  of  the  congregation, 
L.  Adams,  secretary,  and  Anton  Ludi,  schoolteacher.  By  the 
aid  of  a  lottery  the  church  was  completed  under  Chr.  Streit 
in  1787.  William  Carpenter,  a  scholar  of  Streit,  labored  in 
Madison  Co.,  Va.,  from  1791  to  1813,  when  he  removed  to  Ken- 
tucky. Augusta  County,  in  the  Shenandoah  Valley,  was  almost 
exclusively  settled  by  Germans,  the  Koiner  (Coyner,  Koyner, 
Coiner,  Kiner,  Cuyner)  family,  hailing  from  Wuerttemberg, 
being  especially  numerous.  New  Market,  Shenandoah  County, 
was  the  home  of  Paul  Henkel  (1754 — 1825),  who  had  studied 
German,  Latin,  Greek,  and  Theology  under  the  direction  of 
Pastor  Krug  in  Pennsylvania,  and  was  ordained  at  Philadelphia 
in  1792.  A  most  zealous  and  energetic  missionary,  his  jour- 
neys carried  him  into  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Caro- 
lina, Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Indiana.  From  1800  to 
1805  he  was  stationed  in  Rowan  Co.,  N.  C,  and  took  part  in 
the  organization  of  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina  in  1803.  Re- 
turning to  Virginia  in  1805,  he,  together  with  his  six  sons, 
established  a  printery  at  New  Market,  which  loyally  served 
the  cause  of  true  Lutheranism.  As  the  years  rolled  on,  the 
Henkels  became  increasingly  free  from  the  prevailing  doctrinal 
indifferentism,  and  arrived  at  an  ever  clearer  understanding 
of  Lutheran  truth,  and  this  at  a  time  when  all  existing  Lu- 
theran  synods  were  moving  in   the  opposite  direction.     The 


140  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Lutheran  loyalty  and  determination  of  the  Henkels  over  against 
the  unionistic  and  Reformed  tendencies  within  the  North  Caro- 
lina Synod  led  to  the  organization  of  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
July  17,  1820,  a  synod  which  espoused  the  cause  of  pure  Lu- 
theranism,  and  zealously  opposed  the  enthusiastic,  unionistic, 
and  Reformed  aberrations  then  prevalent  in  all  other  Lutheran 
synods  of  America.  Two  years  prior,  September  14,  1818, 
Paul  Henkel  had  participated  in  the  organization  of  the  Ohio 
Synod,  at  first  called  the  General  Conference  of  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Pastors,  etc.  On  October  11,  1820,  conferences,  which 
had  met  since  1793,  led  to  the  organization  of  the  Synod  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia  at  Winchester,  Va.,  by  ten  pastors 
and  nine  delegates.  Nine  years  later  the  Virginia  Synod 
was  organized;  and  the  Southwest  Virginia  Synod,  Septem- 
ber 20,  1841. 

SPECIAL  CONFERENCE  IN  VIRGINIA. 

83.  Minutes  of  1805.  —  In  the  first  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  a  Special  Conference  was  organized  in  Virginia : 
"Specialkonferenz  der  Evang.-Luth.  Prediger  (Lehrer)  und  Ab- 
geordneten  im  Staat  Virginien."  At  the  meeting  held  on  Sun- 
day, October  7,  1805,  in  the  newly  built  church  at  Millerstadt 
(Woodstock),  five  lay  delegates  (among  them  Doctor  Solomon 
Henkel )  and  the  following  ministers  were  present :  Chr.  Streit, 
W.  Carpenter,  Paul  Henkel,  J.  Foltz,  A.  Spintler.  Streit  deliv- 
ered a  touching  sermon  (eine  ruehrende  Rede)  in  the  Lutheran 
church  on  Matt.  28,  20.  In  the  afternoon  Paul  Henkel  preached 
in  the  Reformed  church  on  2  Cor.  4,  5;  in  the  evening,  Car- 
penter on  1  Cor.  1,  23,  also  in  the  Reformed  church.  Monday 
morning  they  met  in  the  schoolhouse.  At  12  o'clock  Spintler 
preached  in  the  Reformed  church  on  Eph.  1,  7.  In  the  after- 
noon it  was  decided  that  an  address  to  the  congregations  be 
added  to  the  minutes  "on  better  bringing  up  of  the  children 
and  better  order  of  the  youth."  On  motion  of  Solomon  Henkel 
it  was  resolved  to  add  to  the  minutes  also  the  21  articles  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  Furthermore  it  was  resolved  that 
after  the  sermon  the  children  should  be  instructed  in  the  cate- 
chism.    It  was  also  approved  to  abolish  as  far  as  possible  the 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  141 

custom  of  saying  the  individual  lines  of  the  hymns  in  public 
worship  (die  Lieder  zeilenweise  vorzusprechen) .  The  address 
added  to  the  minutes  says,  in  part:  "If  children  are  to  grow 
up  well-bred  and  be  reared  to  the  honor  of  God,  then  the 
teachers  in  the  churches,  the  schoolteachers  in  the  school- 
houses,  and  the  parents  in  their  dwellings  must  perform  their 
various  duties  toward  the  young  plants  in  the  vineyard  of  the 
Lord."  "Generally  men  care  for  the  bodily  welfare  of  their 
children,  which  in  itself  is  not  wrong;  why,  then,  should  we 
not  also,  and  indeed  much  more  so,  be  concerned  about  their 
everlasting  and  eternal  welfare?"  "0  parents,  parents!  seek 
to  save  yourselves  and,  as  much  as  is  in  you,  also  your  chil- 
dren! Do  not  spare  any  trouble  or  expenses  to  have  your 
children  instructed  in  the  fundamental  truths  of  our  holy  re- 
ligion. Send  them,  according  to  your  ability  and  the  circum- 
stances, to  school  regularly,  especially  to  such  schools  where 
they  are  trained,  not  only  for  this  world,  but  for  heaven  also, 
where  they  are  instructed  in  song,  prayer,  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  catechism."  "In  our  corrupted  times  some  parents  permit 
their  children  to  waste  the  whole  day  of  the  holy  Sabbath  in 
a  disorderly  and  sinful  manner  rather  than  bring  them  to  the 
teacher  in  order  to  have  them  instructed  for  half  an  hour  to 
their  temporal  and  eternal  welfare.  0  parents,  parents!  is 
that  the  way  to  bring  up  your  children  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord?  0  remember  that,  who  knows  how  soon, 
you  with  your  dear  children  will  have  to  appear  before  God's 
judgment !  0  ponder  what  a  fearful  and  terrible  thing  it  would 
be,  if  at  that  great  day  your  own  children  should  have  to  ac- 
cuse and  condemn  you  there  before  the  throne  of  God ! "  With 
respect  to  the  grown-up  youth  the  address  complains:  "We 
cannot,  in  truth,  think  of  many  of  you  without  shedding  tears. 
Many  of  you  do  not  only  despise  your  mother  tongue,  but  with 
it  your  mother  church.  Many,  at  least  among  those  of  our 
acquaintance,  born  of  Evangelical  Lutheran  parents,  neglect 
the  instruction  which  they  could  have  so  conveniently,  neglect 
confirmation  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  frequently  behave  in 
public  worship  in  a  manner  to  make  one  feel  almost  ashamed 
of  them,  and  thus  they  live  in  the  world  without  religion  and 
without  God." 


142  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

84.  Minutes  of  1807,  etc.  —  To  the  minutes  of  1807  a  for- 
mula for  burial,  furnished  by  Henkel,  is  added  for  the  use  of 
schoolteachers  in  the  absence  of  a  minister.  At  the  meeting 
in  the  schoolhouse  at  Winchester,  1808,  it  was  resolved  that 
the  congregations  elect  devout  men  to  conduct  reading-services 
and  give  catechetical  instruction  to  the  children  on  Sundays 
when  ministers  are  absent.  It  was  furthermore  resolved  that 
ministers  should  conduct,  as  often  as  possible,  private  meetings 
in  their  congregations  in  order  to  edify  the  members  by  prayer, 
song,  and  instruction.  The  admonition,  written  by  Paul  Henkel 
and  Streit,  and  added  to  the  minutes,  in  a  simple  and  earnest 
manner  urges  the  congregations  to  introduce  the  reading- 
services,  the  instruction  of  the  young,  and  to  attend  the  pri- 
vate meetings.  "Coldness  and  indifference  in  religion,"  they 
say,  "is  so  universal  that  we  must  employ  all  possible  means 
to  awaken  men  to  a  true  and  living  Christianity."  A  special 
and  fervent  appeal  is  added  not  to  abuse,  but  to  keep,  the  Sab- 
bath, the  Day  of  the  Lord,  "the  good,  useful,  holy  day,  which 
God  especially  has  reserved  for  Himself  for  the  furtherance  of 
His  honor  and  the  welfare  of  our  immortal  souls."  The  appeal 
concludes:  "Do  you  love  your  country?  Then  sanctify  the 
Sabbath.  Do  you  love  civic  rest?  Then  sanctify  the  Sab- 
bath. Do  you  love  your  neighbors  ?  Then  sanctify  the  Sabbath. 
Do  you  love  your  children?  Then  sanctify  the  Sabbath.  Do 
you  love  your  parents?  Then  sanctify  the  Sabbath.  Do  you 
love  your  preachers,  your  Savior,  and  your  souls?  Then  sanc- 
tify the  Sabbath.  Do  you  desire  to  escape  hell?  Then  sanctify 
the  Sabbath.  Do  you  desire  some  day  to  celebrate  the  eternal 
Sabbath  with  the  saints  and  the  perfected  just  before  the  throne 
of  God?  Then  sanctify  the  Sabbath  here  on  earth,  whereby 
you  may  be  best  prepared  for  those  blissful  occupations."  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Special  Conference  in  the  school  of  Solo- 
mon's Church,  Shenandoah  County,  1809,  it  was  resolved  that 
the  admonition  to  be  added  to  the  minutes  of  this  year  should 
take  "special  reference  to  the  furtherance  of  the  German 
language  and  schools."  The  admonition,  written  by  Paul 
Henkel  and  Carpenter,  complains  that  the  ministers  were  not 
able  to  do  their  mission-duty,  partly  because  they  were  rich 
and  unable  to  undergo  the  hardships  connected  with  traveling, 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LTJTHERANISM.  143 

partly  because  the  congregations  supporting  them  refused  to 
let  them  go.  They  admonish  the  congregations  to  show  their 
brotherly  love  in  permitting  their  ministers  to  serve  their  for- 
saken and  needy  brethren.  Respecting  the  cultivation  of  the 
German  language,  the  admonition  remarks,  in  part:  "In  the 
first  place,  we  know  that  the  English  language  is  not  as  easily 
understood  as  the  German.  Even  when  the  Germans  are  able 
to  read  and  write  it,  they  understand  very  little  of  it  aright. 
Their  parents,  themselves  not  knowing  the  language,  can  hear 
their  children  read,  and  see  them  write,  but  cannot  show  them 
where  they  err,  nor  correct  them.  And  just  as  little  are  they 
able  to  explain  to  them  the  contents  of  what  they  read;  for 
[even]  the  English  understand  very  little  of  what  they  read  in 
some  useful  books,  until  they  learn  to  understand  it  from  their 
dictionaries."  "If  parents  were  really  concerned  about  training 
their  children  for  the  general  weal  of  the  country,  they  would 
see  to  it  that  their  sons  be  taught  the  Christian  religion  in 
their  mother-tongue  as  well  as  be  instructed  in  the  English 
language  to  read,  write,  figure,  etc.  Then  they  might  become 
truly  useful  men  for  the  general  welfare  of  their  country.  All 
the  most  useful  men  that  one  can  point  out  in  our  country  are, 
as  a  rule,  of  this  class.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  men  who, 
for  reasons  of  selfishness  and  pride,  despise  their  language  and 
church  will  stand  for  the  welfare  of  their  country."  The  ad- 
monition concludes:  "We  know  how  much  good  and  wholesome 
instruction  for  the  edification  of  our  souls  and  for  the  comfort 
of  our  hearts  we  have  derived  from  our  German  books,  which 
are  so  easily  understood,  and  which  so  plainly  describe  the 
simple  way  of  life.  From  what  we  learned  from  them  ever 
since  our  youth,  we  have  obtained  our  only  hope  of  salvation 
hereafter;  why,  then,  should  we,  for  any  reason  whatsoever, 
deprive  our  children  of  it?"  According  to  the  statistical  ap- 
pendix of  the  minutes  of  the  Special  Conference  in  1809,  there 
were,  at  that  time,  no  less  than  49  organized  congregations  in 
Virginia.  It  does  not,  however,  appear  that  the  interest  in  the 
German  language  and  the  consciousness  of  true  Lutheranism 
made  any  marked  progress  in  the  following  years.  In  1817,  at 
Culpeper,  Pastors  G.  Riemenschneider,  A   Reck,  Nicholas  and 


144  EAKLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

Peter  Schmucker,  and  Michael  Meyerhoeffer,  and  five  lay  dele- 
gates were  present.  Four  German  and  three  English  sermons 
were  delivered.  Among  the  resolutions  is  the  following:  "that 
only  pious  and,  if  possible,  only  converted  men  be  chosen  as 
elders  of  the  congregations,  and  that  they  live  piously  both 
in  their  homes  with  family  prayer  in  the  evening  and  morning, 
and  before  the  world  respectably  and  honorably,  receive  the 
Lord's  Supper  frequently,"  etc.  Instead  of  any  reference  to 
the  tercentenary  of  the  Reformation  we  find  in  the  minutes  of 
1817  a  resolution  to  the  effect  "that  the  proceedings  of  this 
year,  together  with  a  Letter  of  a  Traveling  Jew  appended,  be 
printed." 

SYNOD  OF  MARYLAND  AND  VIRGINIA. 

85.  Always  Prominent  and  Liberal.  —  The  Synod  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia,  organized  October  11,  1820,  has  always 
been  prominent  in  the  General  Synod.  "The  Lutheran  Observer, 
the  Pastors'  Fund,  the  Lutheran  Ministers'  Insurance  League, 
the  Missionary  Institute,  now  Susquehanna  University,  were 
all  born  in  this  venerable  Synod,  which  was  also  first  to  sug- 
gest the  observance  of  Reformation  Day.  Lutherville  and 
Hagerstown  Female  Seminaries  are  within  its  bounds.  It  has 
always  been  abreast  of  the  most  advanced,  evangelical,  and 
catholic  life  of  the  Church,  giving  no  uncertain  sound  upon 
the  divine  obligation  of  the  Lord's  Day  and  the  saloon." 
(J.  G.  Butler  in  the  Luth.  Cycl.,  482.)  Among  its  noted  pas- 
tors were  J.  D.  and  B.  Kurtz,  J.  G.  Morris,  F.  W.  Conrad,  S.  W. 
Harkey,  Theo.  and  C.  A.  Stork,  D.  F.  Schaeffer,  C.  Philip  and 
C.  Porterfield  Krauth,  S.  S.  Schmucker,  H.  L.  Baugher,  Sr., 
W.  A.  Passavant,  Sr.,  Ezra  Keller.  But  men  of  this  synod  also 
led  the  van  in  doctrinal  and  practical  liberalism.  Harkey  and 
Kurtz  were  New-measurists  and  enthusiastic  revivalists.  Har- 
key moved  the  publication  of  a  monthly,  The  Revivalist,  which 
Synod,  however,  declared  "inexpedient."  Through  the  en- 
deavors of  Kurtz  a  committee  was  appointed  to  bring  in  a  re- 
port on  the  "New  Measures,"  which  was  referred  back  to  the 
committee.  In  1844  Synod  resolved  to  issue  an  "Abstract  of 
the  Doctrines  and  Practise  of  the  Ev.  Luth.  Synod  of  Mary- 
land." Fourteen  doctrinal  articles  were  prepared  by  H.  L. 
Baugher,  B.  Kurtz,  and  S.  W.  Harkey,  containing,  among  other 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  145 

statements,  also  the  following:  "We  believe  that  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  that  God  has  given  to  man,  as  a  natural  gift,  the 
power  of  choice,  and  that,  whilst  he  is  influenced  in  his  voli- 
tions by  motives,  he  always  possesses  the  ability  to  choose  the 
opposite  of  that  which  was  the  object  of  his  choice.  God,  in 
His  providence  and  grace,  places  before  man  the  evil  and  the 
good,  urging  him  by  the  most  powerful  considerations  to  choose 
the  latter  and  reject  the  former.  When  the  sinner  yields  to 
God,  that  is  regeneration."  "We  believe  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  there  are  but  two  Sacraments,  viz.,  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  in  each  of  which  truths  essential  to  sal- 
vation are  symbolically  represented.  We  do  not  believe  that 
they  exert  any  influence  ex  opere  operato,  but  only  through  the 
faith  of  the  believer.  Neither  do  the  Scriptures  warrant  the 
belief  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper  in  any  other 
than  a  spiritual  manner."  "We  regard  them  [the  Lutheran 
Symbols]  as  good  and  useful  exhibitions  of  truth,  but  do  not 
receive  them  as  binding  on  the  conscience,  except  so  far  as  they 
agree  with  the  Word  of  God."  Evidently  these  articles  of  the 
Maryland  "Abstract,"  as  A.  Spaeth  puts  it,  "not  only  avoid  or 
contradict  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Lutheran  Confession, 
but  have  a  decided  savor  of  Arminianism  and  Pelagianism." 
(C.  P.  Krauth,  1, 1111)  October  17,  1856,  the  Maryland  Synod 
declared  that  every  one  is  at  liberty  to  accept  or  reject  the 
doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  which  the  "Definite  Plat- 
form" rejected  as  false,  provided  that  thereby  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  be  not  rejected,  nor  the  doctrinal  basis 
of  the  General  Synod  changed.   (L.  u.  W.  1856,  382.) 

86.  Maryland  Abstract  of  Doctrines.  —  On  the  un- 
Lutheran,  Reformed,  and  Arminian  articles  of  the  Maryland 
"Abstract"  we  quote  Dr.  A.  Spaeth  as  follows:  "This  report 
was  first  recommitted,  and,  in  1846,  was  laid  on  the  table  and 
indefinitely  postponed.  The  Lutheran  Observer  referred  to  it 
in  an  extended  editorial  (November  27,  1846),  and  printed  it 
in  full,  with  a  few  slight  alterations  and  omissions.  We  quote 
from  this  article  as  follows:  'When  asked  what  Lutherans  be- 
lieve, the  question  is  not  always  so  easily  answered  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  inquirer.    We  may  refer  him  to  books,  con- 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  10 


146  EABLY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM. 

fessions,  catechisms,  etc.;  but  the  proponent,  most  probably, 
has  neither  inclination  nor  time  to  hunt  up  and  examine  such 
authorities.  He  desires  to  be  told  in  a  few  words,  distinctly 
and  definitely,  what  is  the  prevailing  belief  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  on  all  fundamental  points  of  religious  truth.  A  short 
tract,  a  page  or  two  comprehending  an  epitome  of  the  doctrines 
and  usages  of  the  mass  of  Lutheran  Christians  in  the  United 
States,  is  what  would  suit  him.  Is  there  anything  of  this  kind 
to  be  found  in  the  Church?  The  want  of  it  has  long  been  felt 
and  expressed.  From  the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  and 
the  West,  we  have  been  asked  for  something  of  this  nature. 
The  question  assumed  such  importance  that  it  was  finally 
agitated  some  two  years  ago  in  the  Synod  of  Maryland,  and 
afterward  in  the  General  Synod  (1846),  held  in  Philadelphia. 
In  both  instances  committees  were  appointed  to  draw  up  and 
report  an  abstract  of  our  "doctrine  and  practise."  The  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  Maryland  Synod  complied ;  and  though 
the  "Abstract"  itself  was  approved,  the  Synod,  for  reasons  which 
we  have  not  time  at  present  to  explain,  did  not  think  proper 
to  adopt  the  report  and  recommend  it  to  the  Church.  The 
committee  was  composed  of  some  of  our  most  intelligent  and 
valued  ministers ;  when  they  had  prepared  it,  they  sent  a  copy 
to  every  minister  of  the  Synod,  soliciting  his  emendations  on 
the  margin,  and  after  its  final  return  it  was  reprinted  with 
the  benefit  of  these  emendations;  and  it  is  in  this  improved 
form  that  we  now  present  it.  We  find  no  difficulty  in  sub- 
scribing the  document,  and  in  presenting  it  as  a  fair,  honest 
exhibition  of  Lutheran  doctrine  and  practise  as  understood  in 
the  latitude  in  which  we  reside;  and  if  we  are  not  greatly 
mistaken,  the  great  mass  of  our  American  ministers  through- 
out the  land  would  not  make  any  material  objection  to  it.' " 
Dr.  Spaeth  continues :  "This  attempt  to  substitute  such  an  'ab- 
stract' for  the  full  and  precise  language  of  the  Confession  of 
the  Church  was  a  sort  of  forerunner  of  the  famous  'Definite 
Platform,'  which  appeared  about  ten  years  afterward,  and 
whose  principal  author,  Prof.  S.  S.  Schmucker  in  Gettysburg, 
was  so  much  pleased  with  the  'abstract'  that  he  referred  to  it 
again  and  again  in  his  lectures  and  articles,  and  even  made 
his  students  commit  to  memory  its  principal  statements.     In 


EAELY  HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN  LUTHERANISM.  147 

an  article  on  the  'Vocation  of  the  American  Lutheran  Church' 
(Evangelical  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  510)  he  says:  'With  the  ex- 
ception of  several  minor  shades  of  doctrine,  in  which  we  are 
more  symbolic  than  Dr.  Baugher,  we  could  not  ourselves,  in  so 
few  words,  give  a  better  description  of  the  views  taught  in  the 
Seminary  [Gettysburg]  than  that  contained  in  his  "Abstract 
of  the  Doctrines  and  Practise,"  etc.  No  ground  of  apprehen- 
sion as  to  our  seminary,  since  the  doctrines  of  our  Symbols 
and  the  prevailing  doctrines  of  our  American  Church  are  here 
faithfully  taught.'"   (112.) 


The  Tennessee  Synod. 


ORGANIZATION. 

87.  "German  Ev.  Luth.  Conference  of  Tennessee."  ■ — 
Although  the  Tennessee  Synod  has  always  been  and  is  now  only 
one  of  the  smaller  American  Lutheran  synods,  its  history  re- 
veals much  that  is  gratifying,  instructive,  edifying,  and  inter- 
esting. The  first  report  is  entitled:  "Report  of  the  trans- 
actions of  the  first  conference  of  the  German  Ev.  Luth.  pastors 
and  deputies  held  in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  in  Solomon's 
Church,  Cove  Creek,  Green  Co.,  on  the  17th,  18th,  and  19th  of 
July,  1820."  The  conference  was  organized  by  Pastors  Jacob 
Zink  of  Virginia,  Paul  Henkel  of  Virginia,  Adam  Miller  of 
Tennessee,  Philip  Henkel  of  Tennessee,  George  Esterly  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  David  Henkel  of  North  Carolina  (who  was  unable 
to  attend  the  first  meeting),  and  19  deputies  of  congregations 
in  Tennessee.  (Bericht  1820,  3.)  By  1827  the  number  of  pas- 
tors had  increased  to  14,  by  1856  to  32,  and  by  1900  to  40.  At 
present  the  Tennessee  Synod  numbers  about  130  congregations 
and  14,500  communicants.  The  name  "Synod"  appears  for  the 
first  time  in  the  English  Report  of  1825,  and  is  found  in  the 
constitution  since  1827.  In  the  minutes  of  1820  we  read: 
"Firstly,  it  was  deemed  necessary  and  good  that  all  business 
and  proceedings  of  this  conference,  or  synod,  shall  be  conducted 
in  the  German  language.  All  written  reports  of  the  proceedings 
belonging  to  the  whole  shall  also  be  published  in  the  German 
language."  (4.)  Synod  also  regarded  it  "as  most  necessary 
that  we  be  as  diligent  as  possible  to  acquaint  our  children  with 
all  our  doctrines  of  faith  in  our  German  language,  since  in  it 
we  are  able  to  instruct  them  in  the  easiest  way."  (9.)  A  foot- 
note makes  the  following  comment:  "The  reason  why  we  de- 
sire a  purely  German-speaking  conference:  Experience  has 
taught  us  that  where  a  conference  is  German-English,  either 
the  one  or  the  other  party  considers  itself  offended.  When 
German  is  spoken,  the  English  brethren  understand  little,  and 
very  frequently  nothing  at  all.    When  English  is  spoken,  many 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  149 

a  German  brother  is  unable  to  grasp  the  matter,  and  accord- 
ingly unable  to  judge  in  questions  of  the  greatest  importance. 
Besides,  at  the  present  time  there  are  very  few  purely  English 
pastors  who  accept  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  and  desire  to 
preach  it."  (4.)  The  same  sentiments  are  voiced  in  the  fol- 
lowing statement  of  this  report:  "False  Lutherans  prefer  to 
seek  entrance  among  the  German  church-people,  because  they 
still  contribute  most  to  the  support  of  the  ministry.  Some 
Germans  also  of  our  day  are  of  such  a  kind  that  if  they  are 
able  to  preach  a  little  English,  no  matter  how  broken  and 
jargonlike  it  is  spoken,  they  are  inflated  with  such  senseless 
pride  that  they  would  no  longer  preach  a  thing  in  their  mother- 
tongue  nor  care  the  least  for  the  order  of  the  Church,  if  it 
were  not  a  question  of  bread  and  of  keeping  the  good  will  of 
some  obdurate  Germans.  They  preach  because  they  take 
pleasure  in  hearing  themselves.  .  Those  who  are  really  English 
and  understand  their  language  do  not  care  to  hear  such,  ex- 
cept at  times,  and  then  for  their  amusement  only.  The  Ger- 
mans therefore  are  under  no  obligations  to  the  good  will  of 
such  sirs,  when  they  serve  them  in  their  language  and  accord- 
ing to  their  order."  (31.)  Originally,  then,  the  Tennessee 
Synod  was  determined  to  be  and  to  remain  a  purely  German- 
speaking  body. 

88.  Attitude  toward  the  English  Language.  —  That  the 
interest  manifested  by  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  the  German 
language  was  not  due  to  any  unreasonable  prejudice  or  hatred 
toward  the  English  language  as  such,  appears  from  the  fact 
that  since  1821  the  minutes  of  Synod  were  printed  both  in 
English  and  German.  Moreover,  in  the  minutes  of  the  second 
convention,  1821,  we  read:  "At  the  request  of  some  of  our 
brethren  of  North  Carolina  it  was  resolved  that  there  be  an- 
nually a  synod  held  in  North  Carolina,  or  in  an  adjoining 
State  in  the  English  language.  The  members  of  the  German 
Tennessee  Synod  may  also  help  to  compose  this  Synod.  It  shall 
be  governed  agreeably  to  the  same  constitution  as  that  of  the 
German  Tennessee  Synod  ( the  language  excepted ) .  Those  who 
compose  this  Synod  may  appoint  the  place  and  time  of  the 
meeting,  when  and  where  they  may  deem  it  expedient."  (Re- 
port 1821,7.)      The  Report  of  1822  records:     "Resolved:     Be- 


150  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

cause  this  Synod  is  German-speaking,  and  Mr.  Blalock  not 
understanding  this  language,  he  cannot  therefore  have  a  seat 
and  vote  in  this  body.  Yet,  the  Revs.  Paul  and  David  Henkel 
are  allowed  as  individual  ministers  to  examine  him,  and  in 
case  he  is  qualified,  to  ordain  him.  It  is  to  be  understood  that 
Mr.  Blalock  is  to  be  ordained  a  minister  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church;  but  in  case  he  should  acquire  a  knowledge 
of  the  German  language,  which  he  expects  to  do,  he  can  then 
have  a  seat  and  vote  in  the  German  synod.  But  whilst  he 
understands  the  English  language  only,  he  may  with  other 
ministers,  who  walk  agreeably  to  the  doctrines  and  rules  of  the 
German  synod,  organize  an  English-speaking  synod,  in  con- 
formity to  a  resolution  passed  last  year."  (5.)  In  1826  the 
resolution  was  adopted:  "Whereas  there  are  sundry  members 
belonging  to  this  Synod  who  do  not  understand  the  German 
language,  and  yet  do  not  wish  to  form  a  separate  body,  it  was 
resolved  that  the  Secretary,  during  this  session,  shall  act  as  an 
interpreter  between  the  German  and  English  brethren.  It  was 
further  resolved  that  at  the  next  session,  during  the  three  first 
days,  all  the  business  shall  be  transacted  in  the  German  lan- 
guage, i.  e.,  if  so  much  time  shall  be  requisite ;  after  which  the 
business  shall  be  resumed  in  the  English  language."  (3.)  The 
anxiety  caused  by  the  language-question  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing letter  of  Philip  Henkel,  dated  October  19,  1826 :  "After 
my  return  from  Synod,  I  found  our  German  congregation- 
members  very  much  dissatisfied  because  they  believed  that  we 
had  violated  the  constitution,  and  I  am  afraid  that  a  separation 
will  be  the  result.  For  the  old  Germans  will  never  suffer  the 
Tennessee  Synod  to  become  a  German-English-speaking  body. 
We  must  certainly  act  carefully  in  this  matter,  otherwise  our 
Synod  will  be  ruined.  .  .  .  They  said  that  they  were  willing 
to  sacrifice  the  constitution,  provided  that  we  remain  an  ex- 
clusively German-speaking  body.  I  also  am  willing  to  relin- 
quish the  constitution,  provided  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
is  made  the  constitution  of  this  synod.  We  shall  find  that  we 
shall  not  be  able  to  keep  the  Germans  and  English  together, 
even  when  we  conduct  synod  at  the  same  place  three  days  in 
the  German  and  three  days  in  the  English  language,  for  the 
Germans  will  have  to  suffer  the  burden.  The  English  will 
always  want  to  attend;     then   they  are  coarsely  treated  by 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  151 

the  Germans;  the  English  complain;  thus  the  matter  will 
he  ruined.  My  advice,  therefore,  is:  Let  us  always  hold 
a  German-speaking  synod,  and  afterwards  an  English-speaking 
one.  In  this  way  we  shall  be  able  to  exist.  For  my  part,  I  am 
willing  to  attend  both.  Every  constitution  except  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  may  then  be  set  aside.  If  the  Germans  refuse 
to  maintain  their  language,  we  can't  help  it,  and  we  are  not  at 
fault  if  they  perish.  If  you  approve  the  plan  of  holding  first 
an  exclusively  German-speaking  synod  and  then  an  exclusively 
English-speaking  synod,  and  also  of  abolishing  every  constitu- 
tion except  the  Augsburg  Confession,  advise  me  at  your  earliest 
convenience.  I  will  then  write  to  the  rest  of  the  preachers,  and 
appoint  the  time  and  place  for  synod.  This  seems  to  be  the 
only  means  of  keeping  our  people  united,  for  at  present  they 
are  apart,  and  who  knows  how  we  may  bring  them  together. 
After  the  constitution  has  been  transgressed,  everybody  feels 
free.  But  if  the  Augsburg  Confession  were  the  constitution, 
every  member  would  readily  agree  to  it.  These  are  my 
thoughts.  Write  soon.  Philip  Henkel."  (L.  u.  W.  60,  63.)  In 
the  minutes  of  1827  we  read:  "14.  Some  members  of  this 
congregation  alleged  the  following  charge  against  Mr.  Adam 
Miller,  Jr.:  that  he  neglected  to  officiate  in  the  German  lan- 
guage, and  thus  deprived  those  of  religious  instructions  and 
edification  who  do  not  understand  the  English.  The  Synod 
was  convinced  of  the  justice  of  the  complaint,  and  considered 
it  highly  necessary  that  these  brethren  should  be  served  in  the 
German  language.  Mr.  Miller,  in  defense  of  his  conduct,  said 
that  he  did  not  understand  the  German  language  accurately 
and  therefore  could  not  officiate  in  it,  and  that  hitherto  he  has 
not  had  an  opportunity  of  learning  it.  But  he  promised  to  ac- 
quire a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  this  language,  provided  his 
congregations  were  willing  to  spare  him  from  their  service  for 
one  year.  He  intends  to  study  this  language  with  David 
Henkel.  The  members  of  his  congregations  who  were  present 
agreed  for  him  to  do  so,  but  requested  to  be  visited  a  few 
times  by  some  of  the  other  ministers  during  the  time  they 
should  be  vacant.  The  Synod  highly  approved  Mr.  Miller's 
resolution,  and  wished  him  to  persevere  in  this  laudable  under- 
taking." (12.)  The  Synod  of  1827  was  confronted  by  con- 
flicting petitions  as  to  the  language-question.     The  following 


152  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

memorials  were  read:  "LA  memorial  from  St.  James's  Church 
in  Greene  County,  Tenn.,  subscribed  by  23  persons.  They  pray 
this  Synod  not  to  alter  the  constitution.  Further,  that  this 
body  remain  exclusively  German,  and  that  some  measures  be 
taken  to  establish  a  separate  English  Synod.  ...  4.  In  a  letter 
in  which  the  Rev.  Adam  Miller,  Sr.,  states  the  reasons  of  his 
absence,  he  prays  this  body  to  allow  the  English  brethren  equal 
privileges,  so  that  they  may  not  be  under  the  necessity  of 
establishing  a  separate  Synod."  ( 14. )  The  constitution,  which 
was  proposed  at  this  meeting  and  accepted  in  the  following 
year,  disposed  of  this  question  as  follows:  "All  debates  shall 
first  be  held  in  the  German  language,  whereupon  the  same  shall 
be  resumed  in  the  English;  provided  there  shall  be  both  Ger- 
man and  English  members  present.  After  the  debates  on  a  sub- 
ject shall  have  been  ended,  then  the  decision  shall  be  made." 
(R.  1827,  24;  B.  1828,  28.)  In  the  following  years  the  English 
language  rapidly  gained  the  ascendency,  until  finally  the  Ger- 
man disappeared  entirely.  (R.  1831,  9;  B.  1841,  8.  9.)  Rev.  Th. 
Brohm,  after  visiting  the  Tennessee  Synod,  wrote  in  the  Luthe- 
raner  of  January  2,  1855 :  "Though  of  German  origin,  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  in  the  course  of  time  has  lost  its  German  element, 
and  has  become  a  purely  English  synod." 

89.  Born  of  Lutheran  Loyalty.  —  The  organization  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod  came  as  a  protest  against  the  projected  Gen- 
eral Synod,  and  especially  against  existing  conditions  in  the 
Synod  of  North  Carolina,  to  which  the  Tennessee  pastors  be- 
longed until  their  secession  in  1820.  March  14,  1820,  Philip 
Henkel  had  written  to  his  brother:  "If  I  am  spared,  I  shall 
attend  synod.  ...  If  the  old  ministers  will  not  act  agree- 
ably to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  we  will  erect  a  synod  in 
Tennessee."  The  "old  ministers"  were  Stork,  Shober,  Jacob 
and  Daniel  Sherer,  and  other  pastors  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  who  advocated  a  union  with  the  sects  and  the  connection 
with  the  General  Synod,  and  sought  to  suppress  such  testimony 
on  behalf  of  Lutheran  truth  and  consistency  as  the  Henkels 
had  begun  to  bear  publicly.  Aversion  to  faithful  confessional 
Lutheranism  was  the  real  reason  why  the  Synod  of  North 
Carolina  in  1816  refused  to  ordain  the  young,  but  able  David 
Henkel,  which,  even  at  that  time,  almost  resulted  in  a  with- 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  153 

drawal  of  the  Henkels  and  their  delegates.  The  tension  was 
greatly  increased  when  the  Synod  of  1819  degraded  David 
Henkel  to  the  rank  of  catechist,  on  the  false  charge  that  he  had 
preached  transubstantiation  and  other  papistic  heresies  and 
thereby  given  offense  to  the  "Reformed  brethren."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  had  proclaimed  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  North  Carolina  Synod  made  the  entry  into  their 
minutes.  "He  [David  Henkel]  is  therefore  no  preacher  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  of  North  Carolina  and  adjacent  States." 
(G.,  696.)  A  source  of  additional  ill  will  was  the  autocratic 
procedure  of  the  officers  in  arbitrarily  convening  the  Synod  of 
1819,  five  weeks  before  the  constitutional  time  (whence  known 
as  the  "Untimely  Synod" ) ,  and  that  without  sending  out 
notices  sufficiently  early,  and  for  a  purpose  most  odious  to  the 
Henkels  and  their  adherents,  viz.,  to  elect  a  delegate  (Shober 
was  chosen)  to  the  convention  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  at 
Baltimore  in  order  to  participate  in  the  framing  of  a  tentative 
constitution  for  the  projected  General  Synod.  Resenting  the 
arrogance  and  unconstitutional  action  of  the  officers  as  well  as 
the  obnoxious  resolutions  of  the  "Untimely  Synod,"  those  mem- 
bers of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  who  had  been  either  unwilling 
or  unable  (having  been  notified  too  late)  to  take  part  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  "Untimely  Synod,"  five  weeks  later,  at  the 
time  prescribed  by  the  constitution,  held  a  synod  of  their  own 
at  Buffalo  Creek,  in  Stork's  congregation,  where  the  "Untimely 
Synod"  had  been  held,  under  the  oaks,  near  the  church,  Stork 
having  refused  them  the  use  of  the  church  for  this  purpose. 
"The  Synod,"  Stork  declared,  "has  been  held;  and  there  is  no 
need  of  holding  it  again."  He  ordered  his  elders  not  to  open 
the  church,  but  finally  permitted  them  to  hold  services  there, 
with  the  express  proviso,  however,  that  no  business  was  to 
be  transacted  in  it.  (B.  1820,21.)  Philip  Henkel  was  elected 
president,  and  Bell  and  David  Henkel  were  ordained.  (21.) 
In  the  following  year,  a  few  months  after  the  so-called 
"Quarreling  Synod"  ( "Streitsynode" ) ,  where  the  majority  of 
the  North  Carolina  Synod  decided  in  favor  of  a  union  with 
the  General  Synod,  the  minority,  as  related  above,  organized  the 
Tennessee  Synod.  (15.)  In  the  minutes  (Bericht)  of  1820,  the 
members  of  the  new  synod  justify  their  withdrawal  and  organi- 
zation as  a  separate  body  by  calling  attention  especially  to  the 


154  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

following  points:  1.  The  officers  and  some  of  the  members  of 
the  North  Carolina  Synod  had  proven  by  their  words  and 
actions  that  they  "could  no  longer  be  regarded  as  truly  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  pastors."  (12.  15.)  2.  The  "Untimely  Synod" 
had  declared  the  excommunication  of  a  member  of  David  Hen- 
kel's  congregation  to  be  invalid,  without  investigating  the 
matter  in  that  congregation,  thereby  infringing  upon  the  rights 
of  the  congregation.  (20.)  3.  The  same  synod  had  not  rebuked 
its  president,  Rev.  Stork,  when  he  made  the  statement  that  he 
could  not  believe  the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  Christ  as  man 
was  in  possession  of  all  divine  attributes,  and  that  he  would 
not  believe  it  if  500  Bibles  should  say  so.  4.  The  Synod  of 
1820  had  declared  David  Henkel's  ordination  "under  the  oaks" 
invalid,  and  had  published  a  sort  of  letter  of  excommunication 
against  him.  (22.)  5.  Synod  had  refused  to  settle  the  mooted 
questions  according  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  synod- 
ical  constitution,  but,  instead,  had  demanded  that  the  minority 
should  yield  to  the  majority.  "We,  however,  thought,"  says 
the  Report,  "that  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ( con- 
cerning which  we  were  convinced  that  it  could  be  proven  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible)  should  have  greater  weight  with  us 
than  the  voice  of  a  majority  of  men  who  are  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  and  ordinance  of  our  Church."  (23.)  6.  Synod  had 
permitted  the  un-Lutheran  remarks  made  at  the  convention  and 
elsewhere  on  Baptism,  the  Eucharist,  Election,  Conversion,  and 
the  certainty  of  the  state  of  grace,  as  well  as  on  union  with  all 
religious  parties,  to  pass  unreproved.  —  Stating  the  causes  of 
the  deplorable  schism,  David  Henkel  wrote  in  1827:  "A  most 
unhappy  difference  exists  between  this  body  and  the  North 
Carolina  Synod.  Previous  to  the  year  1820  some  members  of 
the  former  and  some  of  the  latter  constituted  one  Synod.  In 
this  year  the  North  Carolina  Synod  entered  into  the  connection 
of  a  General  Synod  with  some  other  synods.  This  is  a  con- 
nection and  institution  which  heretofore  did  not  exist  in  the 
Lutheran  community,  and  to  which  the  Tennessee  Synod  object 
as  an  institution  calculated  to  subvert  ecclesiastical  liberty, 
and  to  prepare  the  way  for  innovations.  This,  together  with 
the  difference  in  regard  to  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  religion,  are  the  principal  reasons  of  the 
division."  (R.  1827,  32.)     In  brief,  the  organization  of  the  Ten- 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  155 

nessee  Synod  was  a  solemn  protest  against  synodical  tyranny 
and  anticonfessional  teaching  then  prevailing  in  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  and  in  all  other  Lutheran  bodies  in  America. 
Accordingly,  as  compared  with  her  contemporaries,  it  remains 
the  peculiar  glory  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  that  she  was  born 
of  Lutheran  loyalty. 

90.  Back  to  Luther!  Back  to  the  Lutheran  Symbols!  — 
Such,  in  substance  and  effect,  was  the  slogan  sounded  by  the 
Tennessee  Synod,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  America,  after  long  years  of  confessional  dis- 
loyalty and  of  doctrinal  and  practical  deterioration.  By  dint 
of  earnest  and  conscientious  study  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols 
and  of  Luther's  writings,  the  Tennessee  pastors,  in  particular 
the  Henkels,  had  attained  to  a  clear  knowledge  of  Lutheran 
truth  and  practise,  thereby,  at  the  same  time,  becoming  fully 
convinced  that  of  all  teachings  in  Christendom  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  alone  is  in  full  accord  with  Holy  Writ.  March  13, 
1823,  Solomon  Henkel  wrote:  "A  week  ago  Mr.  York  was  here, 
bringing  with  him  Luther's  Works.  They  are  bound  in  13  folio 
volumes  and  cost  $100.  I  purchased  the  books."  To  penetrate 
deeper  and  deeper  into  the  writings  of  Luther,  to  persuade 
others  to  do  the  same,  and  to  make  this  possible  to  them,  such 
was  the  ardent  desire  and  earnest  endeavor  of  the  Tennessee 
pastors.  Evidently  with  this  purpose  in  view,  Paul  Henkel  had 
established  a  printery  at  New  Market,  Va.,  where  books  and 
tracts  breathing  a  Lutheran  spirit  were  published.  Synodical 
colporteurs  diligently  canvassed  them  among  the  congregations. 
Sound  Lutheran  works,  e.  g.,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  sermons 
by  Luther  and  Arndt,  the  article  on  Good  Works  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  were  from  time  to  time,  by  resolution  of 
Synod,  appended  to  the  synodical  reports.  (1831,  11.)  Nor  was 
their  zeal  satisfied  with  fostering  true  Lutheranism  in  their 
own  midst.  In  order  to  acquaint  the  English-speaking  public 
with  the  truths  and  treasures  of  our  Church,  they  issued  trans- 
lations of  standard  Lutheran  works.  Besides  an  agenda  and 
a  hymnal,  the  New  Market  printery  published  in  1829  an  Eng- 
lish translation  of  Luther's  Small  Catechism  with  notes  by 
David  Henkel;  in  1834,  a  translation  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession with  a  preface  by  Karl  Henkel  (in  1827  David  Henkel 


156  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

had  already  been  commissioned  to  prepare  a  correct  trans- 
lation) ;  in  1851,  an  English  version  of  the  entire  Book  of 
Concord,  of  which  a  second  and  improved  edition  appeared 
in  1854;  in  1852,  "Luther  on  the  Sacraments,"  being  trans- 
lations of  some  writings  of  Luther  by  Jos.  Salyards  and  Solo- 
mon D.  Henkel,  423  pages  octavo;  in  1869,  Luther's  Epistle 
Sermons,  an  English  edition  of  which  had  been  determined 
upon  in  1855.  (Rep.  1826,  7;  1830,  17;  1841,  15;  1855,  14.)  On 
March  1,  1824,  a  certain  Sam  Blankenbecker  wrote  to  David 
Henkel:  "There  are  two  sorts  of  Lutherans:  the  one  sort  be- 
lieves there  is  no  doctrine  right  and  pure  but  the  Lutheran; 
the  other  thinks  that  also  the  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and 
Baptists  are  equally  right  and  pure;  and  such  Lutherans  are 
very  hurtful  to  others."  The  Tennessee  Synod  belonged  to  the 
first  class.  They  were  conscious  Lutherans,  who  knew  what 
they  were  and  what  they  stood  for.  The  fact  is  that  in  those 
days  Tennessee  was  the  only  synod  with  a  true  Lutheran  heart 
and  an  honest  Lutheran  face. 

91.  Despised  and  Ostracized.  —  Their  return  to  Luther 
and  the  Lutheran  Symbols  brought  the  Henkels  and  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  into  direct  opposition  to,  and  sharp  conflict  with, 
all  other  Lutheran  synods  of  that  day.  For,  though  still  bear- 
ing, and  priding  themselves  on,  the  Lutheran  name,  they  all 
had  long  ago  begun  to  abandon  the  confessions  and  distinctive 
doctrines  of  the  Church  which  the  cherished  and  coveted  name 
of  Luther  stood  for.  Their  leaders  had  become  indifferentists, 
unionists,  and  Reformed  and  Methodistic  enthusiasts.  Over 
against  this  lack  of  Lutheran  faithfulness  and  apostasy  from 
the  Confessions  the  Henkels  gave  no  uncertain  testimony. 
Being  Lutherans  in  their  hearts  as  well  as  in  their  heads, 
they  boldly  confessed  the  truths,  and  most  energetically  cham- 
pioned the  cause  of  genuine  Lutheranism.  And  they  squared 
their  actions  with  their  words  and  convictions.  Consistent  also 
in  their  practise,  they  refused  to  fellowship  and  recognize  the 
errorists  everywhere,  even  when  found  in  Lutheran  synods. 
No  wonder,  then,  that  the  Henkels  and  their  uncompromising 
attitude  met  with  no  sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  Lutheran 
synods  then  found  in  America.  And,  being,  as  they  were, 
a   standing  protest  against  the  apostasy  of  these   synods,   it 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  157 

was  but  natural,  carnally,  that  the  Tenneesee  confessors  were 
avoided,  ignored,  despised,  hated,  maligned,  and  ostracized  by 
their  opponents.  Tennessee  was  decried  and  stigmatized  as 
the  "Quarreling  Conference"  ( "Streitkonferenz" ) .  The  "Hen- 
kelites,"  it  was  said,  had  been  convicted  of  error  at  the  "Quar- 
reling Synod";  there  they  had  not  been  able  to  prove  their 
doctrine;  they  were  false  Lutherans;  some  of  them  had  been 
excluded  from  Synod,  therefore  they  had  no  authority  to 
officiate  as  ministers;  their  synod  was  not  a  lawful  synod; 
its  transactions  were  invalid,  etc.  (1820,22.30;  1824,  App.  3; 
1827,43  f. )  All  endeavors  on  the  part  of  the  Tennessee  Synod 
to  bring  about  an  understanding  and  a  unification  in  the  truth 
were  spurned  by  the  other  synods  "with  silent  contempt,"  says 
David  Henkel.  (1827,6.25.)  In  the  Maryland  Synod  the  pre- 
diction was  heard:  "This  Tennessee  Synod  will  go  to  pieces 
finally."  The  Address  of  the  General  Synod  of  1823  states: 
"Our  Church,  which  was  originally  embraced  in  two  inde- 
pendent synods  [Ministeriums  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York], 
has  spread  over  so  extensive  a  portion  of  the  United  States  that 
at  present  we  have  five  synods  [North  Carolina,  Ohio,  Mary- 
land and  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York  Synods],  and 
shall  shortly  have  several  more."  (3.  9.  14.)  The  General 
Synod,  then,  refused  to  recognize  Tennessee  as  a  Lutheran 
synod  in  America.  In  a  letter,  dated  January  23,  1826,  and 
addressed  to  Solomon  Henkel,  H.  Muhlenberg  remarked  that 
the  Tennessee  Synod  "had  as  yet  not  been  recognized  as  a  synod 
by  the  other  Lutheran  synods."  In  1839  the  General  Synod 
censured  both  the  Franckean  and  Tennessee  Synods  as  the  two 
extremes  "causing  disturbances  and  divisions  in  our  churches" 
and  standing  in  the  way  of  a  union  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America  —  a  resolution  which  was  rescinded  in  1864.  Thus 
universal  contempt  and  proscription  was  the  reward  which 
Tennessee  received  for  her  endeavors  to  lead  the  Lutheran 
Church  out  of  the  mire  of  sectarian  aberrations  back  to  Luther 
and  the  Lutheran  Symbols.  Rev.  Brohm,  after  his  visit  with 
the  Tennessee  Synod,  wrote  in  the  Lutheraner  of  June  5,  1855: 
"In  order  to  heal,  if  in  any  way  possible,  the  deplorable  breach, 
the  Tennessee  Synod,  in  the  course  of  seven  years,  made  re- 
peated attempts  to  persuade  her  opponents  [in  the  North  Caro- 
lina  Synod]    to   discuss  the  mooted   doctrines,   offering  them 


158  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

conditions  most  just  and  most  acceptable.  .  .  .  But  with  ex- 
asperating indifference  all  these  offers  were  stubbornly  despised 
and  rejected.  Tennessee  directed  various  questions  also  to  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  in  order  to  learn  their  views  on  the  pend- 
ing doctrinal  controversies.  But  this  body,  too,  did  not  even 
deign  to  answer.  The  Tennessee  Synod,  however,  though  re- 
buffed on  all  sides  and  stigmatized  as  a  fanatical  sect,  quietly 
went  its  way,  without  suffering  itself  to  be  confused  or  led 
astray.  Unanimity  and  love  reigned  among  its  members.  The 
number  of  congregations  which  united  with  them  and  desired 
pastors  from  them  constantly  increased,  so  that  the  Synod  was 
not  able  to  satisfy  all  requests.  The  synodical  resolutions  offer 
ample  evidence  of  the  lively  interest  and  diligence  of  their 
pastors  to  appropriate  more  and  more  fully  the  riches  of  the 
Reformation,  and  to  make  their  congregations  partakers 
thereof."  (11,  166.)  The  first  request  for  a  minister  came  from 
Cape  Girardeau,  Mo.  The  minutes  record :  "At  the  earnest  re- 
quest and  desire  of  a  number  of  German  inhabitants  in  Cape 
Girardeau  ( "Cape  Cheredo" ) ,  Mo.,  through  H.  Johannes  Schmidt 
and  Georg  Klemmer,  who  earnestly  pray  that  they  might  be 
visited,  it  was  resolved  that  H.  Jacob  Zink  should  make  a  jour- 
ney thither,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them 
and  to  perform  all  other  official  acts  that  may  be  required. 
For  this  laudable  undertaking  we  wish  him  the  rich  blessing 
of  the  Lord."   (B.  1820,  10.) 

OBJECTIONS  TO  GENERAL  SYNOD. 

92.  Critique  of  So-called  "Planentwurf."  —  The  forma- 
tion of  a  Lutheran  General  Synod,  warmly  advocated  by  the 
Synods  of  Pennsylvania  and  North  Carolina,  met  with  the 
earnest  and  zealous,  though  not  in  every  respect  judicious,  op- 
position of  the  Tennessee  Synod.  Her  Report  of  1820  contains 
a  criticism  of  the  Planentwurf,  which  in  1819  had  been  pro- 
posed by  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  as  a  tentative  constitution 
for  the  projected  General  Synod.  Among  the  objections 
enumerated  are  the  following:  1.  Whosoever  desired  to  be 
recognized  as  a  pastor  would  be  compelled  to  pursue  his  studies 
at  the  proposed  seminary  of  the  General  Synod.  2.  Of  those 
entitled  to  cast  a  vote  there  were  two  pastors  to  every  lay 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  159 

delegate.  "It  would  therefore  be  vain  for  a  lay  deputy  to 
make  the  journey,  except  he  desired  the  honor  of  being  a  ser- 
vant of  two  masters."  3.  The  General  Synod  arrogated  to 
itself  the  exclusive  right  to  introduce  new  books  for  public 
worship.  4.  Luther's  Catechism  also  was  to  remain  only  until 
the  Synod  would  introduce  other  books.  5.  According  to  the 
Planentivurf,  the  General  Synod  could  reject  all  articles  of 
faith  or  omit  them  entirely.  6.  Neither  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession nor  the  Bible  was  designated  as  the  foundation  of  the 
General  Synod,  nor  even  so  much  as  mentioned  in  the  Plan- 
entwurf.  (52f.)  7.  The  General  Synod  was  striving  to  estab- 
lish a  dominion  over  all  Ministeriums,  as  appeared  from  the 
statement:  "Until  the  permission  or  approval  of  the  General 
Synod  shall  have  been  formally  obtained,  no  newly  established 
body  shall  be  regarded  as  a  Ministerium,  nor  shall  an  ordina- 
tion conferred  by  them  be  considered  valid."  "Accordingly," 
they  said,  "one  had  as  much  liberty  as  the  rope  permitted." 
(54f.;  1822,  10.)  8.  The  General  Synod  claimed  the  right  to 
specify  the  "ranks  universally  valid  for  the  ministry."  "Cate- 
chist,"  as  the  Report  of  1820  has  it,  "candidate,  dean,  and 
pastor  will  no  longer  suffice;  who  knows  but  something  higher 
will  be  required,  such  as  bishop,  archbishop,  cardinal,  or  even 
pope!"  9.  Pastors  were  granted  the  right  to  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  their  synod  to  the  General  Synod.  "Accordingly 
the  case  of  a  pastor,  be  he  ever  so  bad,  may  drag  on  for  years ; 
and  if,  owing  to  extreme  distances  or  other  circumstances,  the 
witnesses  are  not  able  to  attend,  he  may  finally  even  win  it. 
This  provision  renders  the  matter  similar  to  a  temporal  gov- 
ernment, where  appeals  are  commonly  made  from  a  lower  to 
a  higher  court."  10.  "One  cannot  be  sure  that  a  spirit  desiring 
as  much  power  as  appears  to  be  granted  by  this  Planentwurf 
will  be  able  to  rest  and  not  seek  further  power."  11.  No  one 
was  able  to  guarantee  that  this  Lutheran  General  Synod  would 
not  later  on  unite  with  the  General  Synods  of  the  sects  to 
form  a  National  Synod,  in  which  the  majority  would  then 
determine  all  articles  of  faith  and  all  church-customs.  12.  Such 
a  National  Synod  would  be  able  also  to  change  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  and  compel  every  one  to  unite  with 
this  National  Synod,  impose  taxes,  etc.  ( 50  f . )  By  resolution 
of  Synod  the  reasons  why  some  pastors  in  Ohio,  influenced  in 


160  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

their  action  by  Paul  Henkel,  rejected  the  Planentwurf  were 
also  appended  to  the  Report  of  1820.  Among  them  were: 
1.  The  fear  "of  falling  into  the  hands  of  a  strong  hierarchy" 
by  accepting  this  Planentwurf,  since  they  knew  from  church 
history  that  the  Papacy  had  developed  rapidly  along  similar 
lines.  (64.)  2.  The  General  Synod  would  soon  become  English, 
whereas,  according  to  its  ministerial  order,  the  Ohio  Synod 
"must  remain  a  German-speaking  ministerium."  (65.)  3.  Every 
meeting  of  the  General  Synod  would  mean  for  them  a  traveling 
expense  of  $168.  4.  As  the  Planentwurf  was  subject  to  change, 
union  with  the  General  Synod  would  be  tantamount  "  'to  buy- 
ing the  cat  in  the  bag,'  as  the  proverb  has  it."  These  scruples 
reveal  the  fact  that  the  Tennessee  Synod  viewed  the  General 
Synod  as  a  body  which  was  hierarchical  in  its  polity  and 
thoroughly  un-Lutheran  in  its  doctrinal  position,  an  opinion 
well  founded,  even  though  the  objections  advanced  are  not 
equally  valid. 

93.  General  Synod's  Constitution  Criticized.  —  The 
critique  of  the  Planentwurf  was  not  devoid  of  fruit  in  every 
respect.  Due  to  the  testimony  of  the  Henkels,  its  hierarchical 
features  were  toned  down  considerably  in  the  constitution 
finally  adopted  at  Hagerstown,  Md.,  1820.  Thus,  e.  g.,  the 
odious  passage  regarding  the  establishment  of  new  ministe- 
riums  and  the  validity  of  their  ordinations  was  omitted.  Still 
Tennessee  was  far  from  being  satisfied  with  the  constitution 
as  amended.  Moreover,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  draw  up 
their  remaining  objections,  and  the  report  submitted  was  ap- 
pended to  the  minutes  of  1821  and  printed  by  order  of  Synod. 
It  subjects  the  constitution  to  a  severe  examination,  and  makes 
a  number  of  important  strictures.  1.  The  first  objection  was 
raised  against  the  words  of  the  Preamble:  "Whereas  Jesus 
Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  hath  not  given  her  any 
particular  prescriptions  how  church-government  should  be  regu- 
lated, she  therefore  enjoys  the  privilege  in  all  her  departments 
to  make  such  regulations  as  may  appear  best,  agreeably  to 
situation  and  circumstances."  While  recognizing  that  Christ 
has  given  no  prescriptions  "for  the  regulation  of  some  things 
not  essential  to  the  Church,"  they  objected  to  the  sweeping 
statement   of   the   Preamble  whereby   the   government   of   the 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  161 

Church  would  be  left  to  a  majority  of  votes.  Tennessee  main- 
tained that  Matt.  18,  15  Christ  prescribes  to  the  Church  how 
discipline  is  to  be  exercised;  that  1  Cor.  11,  4 — 11  sufficient 
rules  with  respect  to  public  worship  are  prescribed;  that 
1  Tim.  3,  1 — 3  the  grades  of  ministers  are  described;  that 
1  Tim.  5,  19 — 22  instructions  are  given  how  to  receive  an  ac- 
cusation against  an  elder ;  and  that  2  Tim.  2,  3 — 6  Paul  shows 
that  ministers  should  not  be  entangled  with  the  things  of  this 
world.  "From  these  and  many  more  passages  that  might  be 
quoted,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  and  His  inspired  apostles  have 
given  the  Church  sufficient  prescriptions  of  her  government  in 
all  her  various  branches.  They  are  general  rules,  and  yet 
applicable  to  every  particular  case  that  may  occur,  so  that 
they  are  also  particular  prescriptions.  But  that  the  consti- 
tution of  the  General  Synod  saith,  Christ  has  not  left  such 
particular  prescriptions,  appears  a  strange,  unwarranted,  and 
arbitrary  assertion."  ( 14  f . )  2.  The  second  objection  asserted 
that  the  General  Synod  was  a  yoke  of  commandments  of  men, 
hence  could  not  serve  the  purpose  of  true  peace.  According 
to  the  constitution  the  purpose  of  the  General  Synod  was  "the 
exercise  of  brotherly  love,  the  furtherance  of  Christian  har- 
mony, and  the  preservation  of  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the 
bonds  of  peace."  But  the  Eeport  maintained:  "The  attempt 
of  the  establishment  of  this  General  Synod  has  not  produced 
any  brotherly  love,  nor  harmony,  nor  peace;  but  on  the  con- 
trary, divisions,  contentions,  and  confusion.  This  establish- 
ment is  nothing  but  self-invented  rules  and  traditions  of  men, 
and  such  as  love  Christian  liberty  cannot  suffer  themselves  to 
be  brought  into  bondage;  hence  the  confusion.  0  ye  watch- 
men of  Zion,  pity  and  spare  the  flock!"  (17  f.)  A  "note" 
added  by  David  Henkel,  the  "clerk  of  the  committee,"  explains : 
"That  this  institution  of  General  Synod's  promotes  unity  in 
spirit  is  contrary  to  constant  experience.  The  Presbyterians, 
Methodists,  and  other  churches  are  governed  by  General  Synods, 
and  have  many  human  rules  and  regulations;  but  yet  from 
time  to  time  many  disputes  and  factions  have  arisen  among 
them,  so  that  they  are  split  into  many  sects  and  parties.  The 
Lutheran  Church  never  heretofore  was  governed  by  a  General 
Synod,  yet  she  never  was  divided  until  this  novel  system  was 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  11 


162  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

introduced.  .  .  .  The  first  Lutheran  ministers  emigrated  from 
Germany  and  Sweden.  .  .  .  Being  few  in  number,  no  particular 
synods  were  formed  for  many  years;  yet  they  were  united. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  containing  the  principal 
doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  was  their  standard  of  union. 
It  was  unalterable;  they  had  no  novel  system,  produced  by 
a  majority  of  votes,  to  expect.  .  .  .  Each  of  these  synods, 
before  the  General  Constitution  was  formed,  were  independent, 
and  not  amenable  to  any  superior  tribunal,  except  that  of 
Christ.  Differences  in  local  and  temporary  regulations,  the 
formation  of  new  synods,  etc.,  were  not  considered  as  divisions 
of  the  Church;  their  standard  of  unity  was  far  more  noble, 
and  exalted:  the  pure  Scriptural  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  Faith  was  their  meridian  sun,  which  they  viewed 
with  united  eyes;  and  anything  less,  such  as  local  and  tem- 
porary regulations,  never  influenced  their  minds,  even  to  think 
of  divisions.  The  Church  proceeded  peaceably,  until  the  un- 
happy and  fatal  period  of  1819  arrived,  when  a  meeting  was 
called  to  Baltimore,  consisting  of  some  of  the  Synod  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  an  individual  from  North  Carolina,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  devising  a  plan  for  the  establishment  of  the  General 
Synod,  etc.  ( 17  f . )  Article  III,  Sec.  V,  which  provided  that 
"the  General  Synod  shall  take  good  care  not  to  burden  the 
consciences  of  ministers  with  human  traditions,"  called  forth 
the  following  comment:  "The  General  Synod  shall  not  burden 
the  consciences  of  ministers  with  human  traditions,  yet  at  the 
same  time  the  very  institution  of  the  General  Synod  is  nothing 
but  human  laws  and  traditions!  How  vehemently  our  Savior 
upbraided  the  Pharisees  for  their  human  laws  and  the  tradi- 
tions they  imposed  upon  the  common  people!  By  means  of 
human  laws  and  traditions  popery  was  established.  —  Why  are 
preparations  made  now  again  to  introduce  that  horrid  beast? 
How  careful  individual  synods  should  be  not  to  impose  human 
traditions  upon  the  Church,  but  to  remember  that  they  do  not 
assemble  for  the  purpose  of  making  laws  for  the  Church,  but 
only  to  devise  means  to  execute  those  already  made  by  Christ." 
(B.  1821,  26;  R.  1821,  28.  29.)  In  an  additional  "note"  David 
Henkel  remarks:  "The  unity  of  the  Lutheran  Church  doth  not 
consist  in  any  external  forms  or  ceremonies,  or  government 
established  by  men.     It  is  independent  of  any  general  head 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  163 

except  Christ.  The  Seventh  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession of  Faith  points  out  the  true  nature  of  her  unity.  .  .  . 
It  is  the  same  as  if  it  had  said:  the  Church  of  Christ  is  but 
one  united  body,  consisting  of  innumerable  members ;  but  what 
unites  them?  All  believers  believe  in  one  invisible  Lord,  by 
whom  they  are  governed,  for  He  is  their  King;  they  are 
anointed  by  the  same  Holy  Ghost,  for  He  is  their  Comforter 
and  Guide.  This  is  an  invisible,  godlike  union,  not  discerned 
by  the  carnal  eye,  nor  doth  it  imitate  the  unity  of  the  kingdom 
of  this  world.  Christ  is  its  polar  star,  the  Bible  its  charter, 
ministers  who  proclaim  sweet  words  of  peace,  its  heralds,  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  its  seal,  bond,  token,  and  security. 
This  union  is  independent  of  all  human  ceremonies,  traditions, 
general  synods,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  and  has  existed  ever 
since  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel  in  all  realms  and 
climes.  ...  A  union  which  consists  of  human  laws,  cere- 
monies, and  discipline  may  be  termed  a  political  union  — 
a  union  peculiar  to  civil  government  of  this  world.  Now, 
even  were  it  the  case  that  all  who  call  themselves  Christians 
would  be  united  in  this  manner,  it  would  by  no  means  prove 
their  spiritual  unity.  For  many  may  conform  to  one  external 
rule,  and  yet  be  divided  in  heart,  for  they  are  not  all  Israelites 
that  are  of  Israel.  It  is  evident,  because  the  General  Synod 
is  but  the  invention  of  men,  that  they  make  much  more  neces- 
sary to  Christian  unity  than  the  pure  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  proper  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  commanded 
by  Christ.  Thus,  this  establishment  of  the  General  Synod 
must  be  contrary  to  the  Seventh  Article  of  our  Confession  of 
Faith.  True  Christianity  is  thereby  blended  with  human  laws 
and  policy  —  the  true  lineaments  of  popery.  ...  If  no  man  is 
to  judge  Christians  in  respect  to  meat  and  drink  or  of  an  holy 
day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath-days,  who,  then, 
has  a  right  to  judge  them  in  respect  of  forming  books  for  the 
public  use  in  churches,  or  in  respect  of  meeting  as  a  synod, 
without  a  formal  permission,  or  in  respect  of  performing  ordi- 
nations ?  The  General  Synod  have  arrogated  this  right  of  judg- 
ing and  oppressing  Christians  in  these  respects.  These  are 
prerogatives  they  claim,  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
apostle."    (R.  1821,  28.) 


164  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

94.  Criticism  of  Constitution  Continued.  —  3.  The  third 
objection  maintained  that  the  General  Synod  was  Lutheran  in 
name  only.  Says  the  Report:  "This  body,  indeed,  may  call 
itself  Evangelical  Lutheran,  and  yet  not  be  such.  The  consti- 
tution does  nowhere  say  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith, 
or  Luther's  Catechism,  or  the  Bible  shall  be  the  foundation  of 
doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  General  Synod.  It  is  well  known 
that  they  always  have  been  the  standard  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Why  does  the  constitution  not  once  name  them?" 
"Had  the  framers  of  this  constitution  been  zealous  advocates 
of  Lutheran  doctrine,  they  would  have  been  careful  to  insert 
a  clause  to  compel  the  General  Synod  always  to  act  according 
to  our  standard  books.  It  is  an  easy  thing  to  prove  that  some 
of  the  founders  of  this  General  Synod  have  openly  denied  some 
of  the  important  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith 
and  of  Luther's  Catechism."  (B.  1821,  18;  R.  1821,  19.)  4.  The 
fourth  objection  was  based  on  the  proposed  membership  of  the 
new  body,  which,  according  to  Article  II,  was  to  consist  "of 
deputies  of  the  different  Evangelical  Synodical  and  Ministerial 
Connections  in  the  United  States."  Tennessee  commented: 
"This  body  [General  Synod]  may  consist  of  deputies  from  the 
different  evangelical  connections.  It  is  not  said  of  the  several 
Evangelical  Lutheran  connections.  If  this  body  may  consist  of 
the  different  connections,  then  it  is  evident  that  it  may  be  com- 
posed of  all  denominations,  such  as  Presbyterians,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  etc.  These  all  denominate  themselves  Evangelical, 
and  are  even  recognized  as  such  by  some  who  call  themselves 
Lutherans.  Thus  it  is  manifest  that  all  denominations  who 
call  themselves  Evangelical  may  have  seats  and  votes  in  this 
body,  forasmuch  as  there  is  nothing  to  prohibit  them  from  it." 
(R.  1821,22.)  The  German  version  adds  the  following:  "The 
constitution  has  opened  a  door  where  all  manner  of  sects  and 
parties  may  creep  into  the  Lutheran  Church  and  extirpate  her 
doctrine."  (B.  1821,  20.)  These  apprehensions  of  Tennessee 
were  no  mere  products  of  their  own  imagination,  for  just  such 
a  union  of  all  Evangelical  denominations  Shober  and  his  com- 
peers had  been  ardently  advocating  in  the  North  Carolina 
Synod,  especially  since  1817.  5.  The  fifth  objection  was  that 
the  General  Synod  proposed  to  curtail  the  exercise  of  Christian 
liberty  in  regard  to  ceremonies.     Article  III,  Section  II,  pro- 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  165 

vided  that  no  synod  or  ministry  in  connection  with  the  General 
Synod  shall  publish  any  new  catechism,  liturgy,  compilation 
of  hymns,  or  confession  of  faith  "without  having  first  handed 
a  complete  copy  thereof  to  the  General  Synod,  and  having  re- 
ceived their  sentiments,  or  admonitions,  or  advice."  The  Ten- 
nessee Synod  held  this  to  be  against  the  Seventh  Article  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  said:  "Why  shall  individual 
societies  be  robbed  of  the  liberty  to  introduce  such  books  as 
suit  them  best,  when  our  Confession  of  Faith  grants  every 
person  liberty  in  this  case?"  (23.)  6.  A  further  objection  was 
raised  against  this  article  (III,  2)  of  the  constitution  because 
its  language  permitted  the  introduction  of  a  new  confession  of 
faith.  Tennessee  remarked:  "An  opportunity  is  here  given  to 
introduce  a  new  confession  of  faith.  This  appears  a  conclusive 
proof  that  the  General  Synod  do  not  intend  to  be  governed  by 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  nor  vindicate  the  Lutheran 
doctrines  contained  therein;  for  if  they  did,  they  would  not 
by  this  clause  have  given  liberty  to  form  other  confessions  of 
faith.  Perhaps  this  may  be  one  of  the  reasons  why  they  have 
nowhere  promised  in  the  constitution  that  Luther's  Catechism, 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  nor  the  Bible  should  be  the 
guide  of  their  body.  They  wish  to  have  power  to  form  a  new 
confession;  perhaps  more  popular,  and  suited  to  the  new- 
fangled opinions  of  this  present  age  of  infidelity.  Were  not 
the  men  such  as  Luther,  Melanchthon,  etc.,  who  formed  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  as  a  testimony  against  popery 
and  other  heresies,  godly  and  enlightened  men,  and  to  whose 
instrumentality  we  owe  our  light  of  the  Gospel?  Will  any  of 
the  votaries  of  the  General  Synod  presume  to  say  that  this 
confession  is  erroneous,  heretical,  and  wicked?  Can  they  form 
a  better  one?  If  they  answer  in  the  affirmative,  they  are  no 
Lutherans,  as  they  call  themselves.  If  they  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive, why,  then,  have  they  not  positively  specified  in  the  con- 
stitution that  such  should  remain  the  standard  of  the  Church? 
Why  have  they  given  an  opportunity  to  introduce  a  new  con- 
fession? It  is  known  that  all  Lutheran  ministers,  when  they 
are  ordained,  are  solemnly  pledged  as  by  an  oath  to  maintain 
the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith.  But  when 
there  is  an  opportunity  given  to  propose  and  introduce  other 
confessions,  perhaps  the  very  reverse,  what  shall  become  of 


166  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

all  the  oaths  made  at  the  time  of  ordination?"  (24.)  The 
German  Report  argues:  "The  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
already  has,  for  almost  three  hundred  years,  a  confession  of 
faith,  to  wit,  the  Augsburg  Confession.  To  this  confession  all 
Lutheran  ministers  are  pledged  by  an  oath  when  they  are 
ordained.  Since  the  constitution  nowhere  states  that  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  shall  be  retained,  and  other  confessions  of 
faith  may  be  proposed,  it  is  apparent  that  the  General  Synod 
has  the  power  to  abrogate  the  Augsburg  Confession  entirely, 
and  to  introduce  a  new  and  erroneous  confession  of  faith,  and 
consequently  to  set  aside  the  oath  of  ordination."  (B.  1821,  22.) 
7.  A  further  objection  to  the  General  Synod  was  based  on 
Article  III,  Section  V,  which  provided,  among  other  things, 
that  the  General  Synod  shall  take  good  care  "not  to  oppress 
any  person  on  account  of  differences  in  opinion."  After  point- 
ing out  that  this  can  only  be  understood  as  referring  to  doc- 
trinal differences,  Tennessee  made  the  following  arraignment: 
"What  an  opportunity  is  here  given  to  introduce  all  manner  of 
false  doctrines!  If  no  person  is  to  be  afflicted  in  respect  to 
difference  in  opinion,  then  no  person  can  be  excommunicated 
for  propagating  any  false  or  wicked  doctrine.  One  might  deny 
the  Holy  Trinity,  and  encourage  any  system  of  infidelity,  and 
yet,  agreeably  to  this  constitution,  no  one  could  be  rebuked  nor 
suspended.  One  might  plead  this  article  in  defense,  and  say 
the  General  Synod  have  no  right  to  oppress  me  for  my  different 
opinion."  (R.  1821,  30;  B.  1821,  25.)  The  German  report  con- 
cludes as  follows:  "This  is  nourishment  for  the  lukewarm 
spirit,  where  men  are  indifferent  whether  true  or  false  opinions 
are  maintained."  (27.)  That  also  these  apprehensions  were 
not  purely  imaginary  appears  from  the  fact  that  two  delegates 
of  the  Ministerium  of  New  York,  then  identifying  itself  with 
the  rationalism  of  Quitman,  were  permitted  to  participate  in 
the  organization  of  the  General  Synod.  8.  Finally,  Article  III, 
Section  VIII,  provided  that  the  General  Synod  should  "be  sedu- 
lously and  incessantly  regardful  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
times,  and  of  every  casual  rise  and  progress  of  unity  of 
opinions  among  Christians  in  general,  in  order  that  the  blessed 
opportunities  to  promote  concord  and  unity,  and  the  interests 
of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  may  not  pass  by  neglected  and  un- 
availing."    In  this,  too,  Tennessee  saw  but  "another  oppor- 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  167 

tunity  to  extirpate  the  Lutheran  doctrine."  "For,"  said  they, 
"how  is  it  possible  that  the  opinions  of  Lutherans  can  ever 
become  agreed  with  those  of  Calvinists  and  other  parties  so 
long  as  they  do  not  deny  their  teachings?"  (B.  1821,  30.)  The 
English  Report  merely  states:  "All  that  we  can  understand 
from  this  [Section  VIII]  is  a  desire  to  unite  with  all  denomi- 
nations." (34.)  Thus  the  Tennessee  Synod,  with  the  utmost 
candor,  exposed  and  rebuked  the  un-Lutheran  features  of  the 
constitution  of  the  General  Synod,  which  substituted  external 
organization  and  union  for  true  internal  Christian  unity  in 
the  Spirit.  David  Henkel  remarked:  "Is  the  General  Synod 
a  plant  which  has  been  planted  by  the  heavenly  Father?  No. 
It  was  planted  by  a  majority  of  votes.  ...  It  is  too  lamen- 
table a  fact  that  among  the  most  denominations  human  laws, 
discipline,  and  ceremonies  are  made  the  rallying  point  of 
unity!"  (R.  1821,30;  1832,  17.)  It  was  in  the  spirit  of  truth 
and  conscientiousness  that  Tennessee  had  made  her  objections 
to  the  constitution  of  the  General  Synod.  "We  conclude,"  they 
say,  "hoping  that  the  friends  of  the  General  Synod  will  not 
view  us  as  enemies.  We  would  freely  join  in  with  them  if  we 
could  do  it  with  a  good  conscience  .  .  .;  it  is  much  easier  to 
swim  with  than  against  the  current."    (34.) 

ATTITUDE  AS  TO  CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 

95.  Refusing  to  Join  in  with  General  Synod.  —  The 
practise  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  squared  with  her  doctrinal 
position.  Also  church-fellowship  was  regarded  as  a  matter,  not 
of  expediency  and  policy,  but  of  conscience.  In  the  conclusion 
to  their  "Objections  against  the  Constitution  of  the  General 
Synod"  the  committee  declared:  Since  a  general  connection  of 
all  ministers  in  a  General  Synod  would  exalt  the  clerical  state 
to  a  high  degree  above  the  people;  since  greater  burdens  might 
then  be  imposed  on  the  people,  and  ministers  could  thereby  live 
more  comfortably;  since  our  widows  and  orphans  also  might 
then  live  with  much  ease  and  our  missionary  services  would 
be  amply  remunerated;  and  since  the  union  with  the  General 
Synod  would  increase  our  popularity  and  decrease  our  burden- 
some labors,  —  "we,  therefore,  would  freely  join  in  with  them 
if  we  could  do  it  with  a  good  conscience,"  and  "if  we  could 


168  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

justify  such  conduct  before  the  judgment  throne  of  Christ." 
(R.  34;  B.  30.)  In  accordance  herewith  Tennessee,  at  her  first 
meeting,  resolved:  "It  cannot  be  tolerated  that  a  teacher  of 
our  conference  have  any  connection  with  the  so-called  Central 
or  General  Synod,  for  the  reason  which  will  be  adduced  after- 
wards." (5.)  The  minutes  of  1826  record:  "Whereas  there  is 
a  report  in  circulation,  both  verbally  and  in  print,  that  some 
of  us,  members  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  should  have  said 
that  we  now  regard  the  General  Synod  as  a  useful  institution; 
that  we  disapprove  the  turbulent  conduct  of  a  certain  member 
of  this  body;  that  we  (some  of  us)  pledged  ourselves  to  leave 
this  body  if  we  cannot  succeed  in  having  said  member  expelled, 
we  deem  it  our  duty  hereby  to  inform  the  public  that  we  are 
unanimously  agreed  in  viewing  the  General  Synod  as  an  anti- 
Lutheran  institution,  and  highly  disapprove  it,  and  are  the 
longer,  the  more  confirmed  in  this  opinion;  and  that  we  know 
of  no  member  among  us  whose  conduct  is  turbulent  or  im- 
moral, and  hence  have  no  desire  either  to  expel  any  one,  nor  do 
any  of  us  intend  to  withdraw  from  this  body.  Neither  do  we 
know  of  any  member  among  us  who  is  not  legally  ordained. 
We  testify  that  we  live  in  brotherly  love  and  harmony.  Sep- 
tember 5,  1826."  (6.)  In  1839  the  General  Synod  publicly  de- 
nounced the  Tennessee  Synod,  charging  her  with  un-Lutheran 
as  well  as  unchristian  doctrine  and  conduct.  The  matter, 
brought  to  the  attention  of  Tennessee  by  a  petition  from  the 
congregation  at  New  Market  and  from  Coiner's  Church,  was 
disposed  of  by  the  following  resolutions:  "1.  Resolved,  That  it 
is  to  us  a  matter  of  small  importance  whether  the  General 
Synod  recognizes  us  as  an  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  or  not, 
since  our  orthodoxy  and  our  existence  as  a  Lutheran  body  in 
no  wise  depends  on  their  judgment.  2.  Resolved,  That  we  can- 
not recognize  the  General  Synod  as  an  Evangelical  Lutheran 
body,  forasmuch  as  they  have  departed  from  the  doctrines  and 
practises  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  3.  Resolved,  That  under 
present  circumstances  we  have  no  inclination  whatsoever  to 
unite  with  the  General  Synod,  and  can  never  unite  with  them, 
except  they  return  once  more  to  the  primitive  doctrine  and 
usages  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  4.  Resolved,  That  Pastor  Braun 
be  appointed  to  draw  up  our  objections  to  the  General  Synod, 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  169 

and  to  show  from  its  own  publications  wherein  that  body  has 
departed  from  the  doctrine  and  usages  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and  submit  his  manuscript  to  this  Synod  at  its  next  session 
for  examination;  and  that,  if  approved,  it  be  printed." 
(B.  1841,  11  j  E.  1842,  8.)  In  this  connection  the  Tennessee 
Synod  likewise  resolved  in  no  wise  to  take  part  in  the  cen- 
tenary of  the  Lutherans  in  America  as  recommended  by  the 
General  Synod.  (15.)  At  the  next  session  of  Synod  the  com- 
mittee reported  that  they  had  examined  the  manuscript  sub- 
mitted by  Rev.  Braun,  and  that  it  was  "well  calculated  to  place 
in  their  proper  light  the  views  and  practises  of  the  General 
Synod  and  expose  its  corruptions  and  departures  from  Lu- 
theranism,  as  well  as  to  evince  the  fact  that  the  Tennessee 
Synod  still  retain  in  their  primitive  purity  the  doctrines,  and 
adhere  to  the  usages  of  the  Lutheran  Church."  (10.)  When, 
in  1853,  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  called  upon  all  Lutheran 
synods  to  follow  their  example  and  unite  with  the  General 
Synod,  Tennessee  took  cognizance  of  this  matter  in  the  follow- 
ing resolution:  "Whereas  we  regard  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  as  the  authorized  and  universally  acknowledged 
Symbol  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  consequently 
the  belief  and  acknowledgment  of  it,  in  its  entireness,  as  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  Lutheranism  in  its  integrity;  and 
whereas  we  profess,  in  our  synodical  constitution,  to  believe 
the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  system  as  exhibited  in  this 
symbol,  and  have  pledged  ourselves  to  teach  according  to  it; 
and  whereas  the  doctrinal  position  of  the  General  Synod,  as 
we  understand  it,  is  only  a  qualified  acknowledgment  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  as  we  think  it  evident,  a)  from  the  con- 
stitution of  this  body,  in  which  there  is  no  clause  binding  its 
members  to  teach  according  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  not  even  a  distinct  mention  of  this  instrument; 
b)  from  the  constitution  recommended  by  the  General  Synod 
to  the  District  Synods  connected  with  it;  c)  from  the  form 
of  oath  required  of  professors  in  its  Theological  Seminary, 
when  inducted  into  office;  d)  from  the  construction  placed 
upon  its  Constitution  by  the  framer  of  that  instrument,  and 
other  prominent  members  of  it;  e)  from  the  various  publica- 
tions made  by  distinguished  members  of  the  General  Synod, 
in  which  distinctive  doctrines  of  our  Church  confessions  are 


170  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

openly  assailed,  and  for  doing  which  they  have  never  been 
called  to  account:  be  it  therefore  1.  Resolved,  That  we  cannot, 
under  existing  circumstances,  take  any  steps  toward  a  union 
with  the  General  Synod."   (8.) 

96.  Attitude  toward  North  Carolina  Synod.  —  In  her 
relations  with  the  North  Carolina  Synod  the  practise  of  Ten- 
nessee was  in  perfect  keeping  with  her  doctrine,  her  actions 
tallying  with  her  words.  In  1820  they  declared:  "No  teacher 
of  our  Conference  may  take  seat  and  vote  in  the  present  Synod 
of  North  Carolina,  since  we  cannot  look  upon  them  as  a  truly 
Evangelical  Lutheran  synod."  (B.  1820,  9.)  Neither  was  it 
tolerated  that  a  member  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  at  the  same 
time  be  a  member  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod;  witness  the 
case  of  Seechrist.  (RL  1826,  4.)  Furthermore,  Tennessee  de- 
clared that  steps  looking  to  a  union  with  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  would  be  contemplated  only  if  the  respective  pastors  of 
that  synod  were  to  "revoke  their  doctrine  in  print  as  publicly 
as  they  had  disseminated  the  same,  and  would  give  entire 
assent  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  (1824,  11; 
1825,  6.)  At  the  sixth  convention,  1825,  the  committee  previ- 
ously appointed  to  negotiate  with  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
reported  that  the  ministers  of  that  connection  had  refused  to 
deal  with  them,  1.  Because  this  "committee  did  not  entitle 
them  as  a  genuine  Lutheran  body;  and  2.  because  we  ap- 
pointed farmers  to  constitute  the  committee."  (6.)  With  re- 
spect to  the  first  grievance  Tennessee  declared:  "We  must 
here  observe  that  we  cannot  consistently  grant  to  the  Synod 
of  North  Carolina  this  title,  because  we  maintain  that  they 
departed  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  This  is  the  very  design 
in  preferring  the  questions,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they 
adopted  different  views,  since  they  published  their  doctrines. 
We,  therefore,  entreat  them  not  to  be  offended  when  at  this 
time  we  cannot  grant  the  desired  title,  but  to  be  contented 
until  a  union  with  respect  to  doctrine  shall  have  been  effected." 
(R.  1825,  6.)  Thus  Tennessee  was  careful  to  avoid  even  the 
appearance  of  denying  her  convictions.  Dissimulation  was  not 
in  her  nature.  True  to  her  convictions  she  formulated  the  ad- 
dress of  her  second  petition  for  negotiations  as  follows:  "To 
the  Rev.  Synod  of  North  Carolina,  who  assume  the  title  Lu- 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  171 

theran,  but  which  we,  at  this  time,  for  the  reason  aforesaid, 
dispute.  Well-beloved  in  the  Lord,  according  to  your  per- 
sons," etc.  (R.  1825,  6.)  Similar  language  was  employed  in 
the  invitation  of  December,  1826,  which  the  Tennessee  com- 
mittee ( Daniel  Moser  and  David  Henkel )  sent  to  Pastors  Stork, 
Shober,  Sherer,  and  other  pastors  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
to  conduct  a  public  debate,  that  every  one  might  be  enabled  to 
decide  for  himself  "'who  are  the  genuine  and  who  the  spurious 
Lutherans."  The  invitation  reveals  a  spirit  of  love,  fairness, 
and  willingness  to  yield  in  every  point  which  was  not  a  matter 
of  conscience,  as  well  as  true  Lutheran  conscientiousness  and 
determination  not  to  yield  a  single  point  in  violation  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Lutheran  Symbols.  Here  Daniel  Moser  and 
David  Henkel  who  wrote  the  letter  of  invitation  state  with 
true  Christian  frankness:  "You  call  yourselves  Lutherans,  and 
we  call  ourselves  the  same ;  notwithstanding  there  is  a  division. 
You  have  accused  us  with  teaching  erroneous  doctrines,  and 
we,  notwithstanding  the  appellation  you  give  yourselves,  deny 
that  your  doctrines  correspond  with  the  same  or  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures."  (27.)  "We  are  willing  to  forgive  all  private  con- 
duct which  we  conceive  erroneous  and  criminal  in  you.  You 
ought  also  to  be  willing  to  forgive  what  you  conceive  to  be  the 
same  in  us.  But  as  we  differ  with  you  in  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion,  an  ecclesiastical  union  is 
impracticable,  until  the  one  or  the  other  party  be  clearly 
refuted  and  convinced."  (29.)  The  following  were  mentioned 
as  the  chief  points  of  difference  which  ought  to  be  discussed: 
"1.  The  person  and  incarnation  of  Christ,  etc.  2.  Justification. 
3.  Repentance.  4.  Good  Works.  5.  Holy  Baptism.  6.  The 
Lord's  Supper.  7.  Church  Government."  (R.  1827,  26.)  An 
offer  of  union  made  by  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  in  1847,  was 
answered  by  Tennessee  as  follows:  "Resolved,  That  we  accede 
to  a  union  with  the  said  Synod  only  on  the  platform  of  pure 
and  unadulterated  Evangelical  Lutheranism  —  a  union  which 
we  shall  heartily  rejoice  to  form,  as  is  evident  from  the  repeated 
overtures  we  made  to  bring  about  such  a  desirable  state  of 
things."    (R.  1847,  9.) 

97.   Attitude   toward   Other   Southern   Synods.  —  Ten- 
nessee  was   conscious   of   representing  nothing   but   the   pure 


172  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

truth  of  unadulterated  Lutheranism  also  over  against  the 
Synods  of  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  and  South  West  Virginia. 
Despite  enmity,  contempt,  and  slander,  they  were  unwilling  to 
enter  into  any  unionistic  compromise  at  the  expense  of  the 
truth  as  they  saw  it.  As  for  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
(organized  1824),  the  Tennessee  Report  of  1838  recorded  the 
following  protest:  "Whereas  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  has 
recently  employed  various  scandalous  means  in  order  to  bring 
the  Ev.  Luth.  Tennessee  Synod  into  disrepute,  in  particular  by 
the  annotations  contained  in  a  sermon  delivered  by  Pastor 
Johannes  Bachman,  D.  D.,  which  was  published  with  the  ap- 
proval and  by  the  support  of  said  Synod  (the  aforementioned 
sermon,  unless  its  evil  influence  is  hindered,  is  well  calculated 
to  make  a  false  and  unfavorable  impression  upon  otherwise 
honest  minds,  and  to  represent  our  doctrine,  synod,  and  pas- 
tors as  being  the  objects  of  scorn,  disdain,  and  constant  perse- 
cution) ;  and  whereas  we  believe  that  we  stand  on  the  primi- 
tive ground  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  glorious  and  memorable  Reformation,  which  was  wrought 
through  the  especial  mediation  of  the  Saxon  Reformers, 
Dr.  Martin  Luther  and  his  immortal  assistants,  exactly  agrees 
with  the  Word  of  God,  which  we  regard  as  the  only  infallible 
norm  of  faith  and  life:  1.  therefore  be  it  Resolved,  That  we 
regard  the  actions  of  the  South  Carolina  Synod  toward  us  as 
impolite,  ignoble,  dishonest,  and  uncharitable.  2.  Resolved, 
That  we  look  upon  the  assertions  in  Dr.  Bachman's  sermon 
as  utterly  unfounded  and  without  the  slightest  approach  to 
the  truth,  but  as  base  calumniations,  well  calculated  to  insult 
(beschimpfen)  our  Synod."  At  the  same  time  Pastors  Braun 
and  Miller  were  appointed  a  committee  to  publish  a  refutation 
of  Bachman's  sermon.  (B.  1838,  11.)  In  his  address  delivered 
on  November  12,  1837,  Bachman,  as  President  of  the  South 
Carolina  Synod,  had  voiced,  with  a  squint  toward  Tennessee, 
among  others,  the  following  sentiments:  "We  have  never 
boasted  of  being  an  exclusive  church,  whose  doctrines  are  more 
Scriptural  or  whose  confessors  are  purer  than  those  of  other 
denominations  round  about  us.  .  .  .  We  will  gladly  unite  with 
every  friend  of  the  Gospel  in  producing  the  downfall  of  sec- 
tarianism, though  not  the  obliteration  of  sects.     Our  pulpits 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  173 

have  ever  been  open  to  the  servants  of  every  Christian  com- 
munion, and  we  invite  to  our  communion  tables  the  followers 
of  Jesus  regardless  of  what  particular  denomination  they  may 
belong  to."  Dr.  Bachman,  in  direct  contravention  to  what  the 
Henkels  had  maintained  over  against  Stork  and  Shober  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  expressed  his  own  indifferentistic  and 
Reformed  doctrinal  position  as  follows:  "If  Baptism  is  re- 
generation, why,  then,  does  not  every  one  who  has  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy  walk  with  God  from  his  Baptism?  Why  does 
not  every  one  lead  a  pious  life?  Evidently,  such  is  not  the 
case!"  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  a  hundred  years  the  Lu- 
theran Church  has  abandoned  the  moot  question  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  etc.,  and  has  left  it  to  the  consciences  of  its  members 
to  decide  what  they  must  believe  according  to  Holy  Writ. 
This  we  may  do  without  deviating  from  the  faith  of  our 
Church,  since  at  our  ordination,  especially  in  this  country,  we 
confess  nothing  more  than  that  the  fundamental  articles  of 
the  divine  Word  are,  in  a  manner  substantially  correct,  pre- 
sented in  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession." 
{Kirchl.  Mitt.  1846,  34  f.)  In  the  same  year  (1838)  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  instructed  its  secretary  to  inquire  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Virginia  Synod  (organized  1829  at  Woodstock) 
why,  according  to  the  resolution  passed  at  their  last  meeting, 
they  do  "not  recognize  the  members  of  the  Tennessee  Confer- 
ence as  Evangelical  Lutheran  pastors."  (B.  1838  12.)  And, 
when,  in  1848,  the  Western  Virginia  Synod  (Southwest  Vir- 
ginia Synod,  organized  1841)  requested  an  exchange  of  dele- 
gates, Tennessee  answered:  "Resolved,  That,  although  it  would 
afford  us  the  highest  gratification,  and  we  most  sincerely  desire 
to  see  those  who  are  one  with  us  in  name  also  united  in  doc- 
trine and  practise,  and  in  that  case  would  most  cheerfully  unite 
and  cooperate  with  them  in  such  measures  as  are  calculated  to 
advance  and  promote  the  cause  of  truth,  yet  we  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that,  however  much  a  union  is  desired,  it 
can  only  be  effected  upon  the  assurance  of  a  strict  adherence 
to  the  doctrines  and  usages  of  our  Church  as  set  forth  in  its 
Symbols;  and  until  we  can  have  this  assurance,  we,  on  our 
part,  can  consent  to  no  such  union."    (R.  1848,  8.) 


174  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

EFFORTS  AT  UNITY  AND  PEACE. 

98.  Attempts  at  Union  with  North  Carolina.  —  Though 
universally  decried  as  the  "Quarreling  Conference,"  Tennessee 
enjoyed  and  cultivated  unity  and  harmony  within,  and  zeal- 
ously also  sought  peace  and  unity  with  other  Lutheran  synods. 
In  1826  all  of  the  Tennessee  ministers  signed  a  document, 
denying  a  report  circulated  by  their  enemies,  according  to 
which  Tennessee  was  disagreed  as  to  its  attitude  toward  the 
General  Synod,  and  declaring:  "We  testify  that  we  live  in 
brotherly  love  and  harmony."  The  minutes  add:  "Thus  it  is 
evident  that  all  the  ministers  of  this  body  live  in  brotherly 
love,  and  entertain  uniform  sentiments."  (7.)  Nor  did  the 
staunch,  unbending  doctrinal  position  of  Tennessee  prove  to  be 
a  hindrance  of,  and  a  check  upon,  their  efforts  at  unity  and 
peace,  but  rather  a  spur  to  most  earnest  endeavors  in  this 
direction.  Moreover,  after  having  themselves  fully  realized 
that  the  Lutheran  Confessions  contain  nothing  but  God's 
eternal  truth  over  against  the  manifest  errors  of  the  Roman 
and  other  churches,  it  was,  as  shown  above,  the  ambition  and 
prayer  of  the  Henkels  to  lead  the  American  Lutheran  synods 
out  of  the  mire  of  sectarian  aberrations  back  to  the  unadul- 
terated Lutheranism  of  Luther  and  the  Lutheran  Symbols. 
When,  in  1824,  some  members  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
made  proposals  for  a  union  of  the  two  synods,  Tennessee  forth- 
with appointed  a  committee  to  negotiate  with  them.  (10.)  This 
committee  was  instructed  to  compile  the  controverted  points 
of  doctrine  from  the  writings  of  the  two  parties,  "and  to  put 
into  one  column  what  the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  teach,  and  in  an  adjoining  column  what  the  Tennessee 
Synod  teaches,  so  that  every  one  may  immediately  perceive  the 
difference."  In  this  way  they  hoped  to  enable  every  one  to 
decide  for  himself  which  party  taught  according  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  In  the  interest  of  truth  the  committee  was 
also  authorized  to  direct  such  questions  to  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  as  they  might  see  fit.  (11.)  It  was,  however,  resolved 
that  any  further  arrangements  for  union  were  not  to  be  made 
until  "said  pastors,  in  case  they  would  be  convinced,  recall 
their  doctrine  in  print  as  publicly  as  they  had  disseminated  it, 
and  fully  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  175 

and  to  Lutheran  order  as  it  obtained  before  the  institution  of 
the  General  Synod  arose."  (11.)  Following  are  the  questions 
which  were  directed  "to  the  Messrs.  C.  Stork,  G.  Shober,  Jacob 
Sherer,  Daniel  Sherer,  Jacob  Miller,  Martin  Walter,  and  to 
all  other  men  belonging  to  this  connection"  (North  Carolina 
Synod)  :  "1.  Do  ye  intend  for  the  future  to  maintain  what  you 
have  asserted,  viz. :  'Baptized  or  not  baptized,  faith  saves  us?' 
Or  upon  mature  deliberation,  have  ye  concluded  publicly  to  re- 
voke the  same  as  erroneous?  2.  Will  ye  also  maintain  that 
the  Christian  Church  may  consist  of  twenty  different  opinions? 

3.  Do  ye  deny  that  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  are 
really  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  administered  and  re- 
ceived under  the  external  signs  of  bread  and  wine?  and  that 
also  the  unbelieving  communicants  do  eat  and  drink  His  body 
and  blood?  Further,  do  ye  deny  that  Jesus  Christ,  agreeably 
to  both  natures,  as  God  and  man,  inseparably  connected  in  one 
person,  is  omnipresent,  and  thus  an  object  of  supreme  worship? 

4.  Do  ye  intend  to  relinquish  the  General  Synod,  if  in  case  ye 
cannot  prove  the  same  to  be  founded  in  the  Holy  Scriptures?" 
(R.  1825,  8;  B.  1824,  Appendix,  2.)  However,  the  Carolina 
Synod  declined  to  answer.  The  Tennessee  committee  reported 
1825:  "The  ministers  of  said  connection  [Carolina  Synod]  re- 
fused to  answer  the  committee  that  was  appointed  last  year  to 
negotiate  with  them.  The  reasons  of  their  refusal  shall  here 
be  inserted :  Said  ministers  assign  the  following  reasons  which 
we  learn  from  Mr.  J.  Sherer's  letter  and  their  minutes:  1.  That 
the  committee  did  not  entitle  them  as  a  genuine  Lutheran  body ; 
and  2.  because  we  appointed  farmers  to  constitute  the  com- 
mittee." ( R.  1825, 6. )  David  Henkel  wrote  in  1827 :  "In  the  year 
1822  I  addressed  a  letter  to  them  [North  Carolina  Synod].  .  .  . 
But  they  refused  to  accept  the  letter  because  they  got  offended 
with  the  address  which  was,  'The  Lutheran  Synod  of  North 
Carolina  and  adjoining  States,  so  called.'  The  Tennessee  Synod 
have  since,  at  several  of  their  sessions,  made  sundry  propo- 
sitions to  them  for  a  reciprocal  trial,  and  have  proposed  some 
questions  to  them  which  they  were  requested  to  answer.  But 
as  they  were  not  addressed  in  such  manner  as  to  recognize 
them  as  genuine  Lutherans,  they  rejected  every  proposition. 
It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  they  were  not  thus  addressed 
through  contempt,  but  rather  through  necessity.     One  of  the 


176  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

charges  against  them  is  that  they  deviated  from  the  Lutheran 
doctrines;  hence  had  we  addressed  them  in  such  manner  as 
to  have  recognized  them  as  genuine  Lutherans,  they  might 
easily  have  justified  themselves  under  the  covert  of  the  ad- 
dress, and  have  produced  it  as  an  evidence  against  our  charge." 
(R.  1827,35.)  However,  though  North  Carolina  had  not  even 
answered  their  letter,  Tennessee  did  not  relinquish  her  efforts 
at  peace  and  harmony.  In  the  following  year,  1825,  a  memorial 
subscribed  by  nine  persons  was  submitted,  requesting  Synod 
"to  make  another  attempt  to  effect  a  union  with  the  ministers 
of  the  North  Carolina  Synod ;  yet  so  that  the  genuine  Lutheran 
doctrine  be  not  thereby  suppressed."  (R.  1825,  6.)  Pursuant 
to  this  request,  "it  was  resolved  that  the  questions  again  should 
be  preferred  in  a  friendly  manner;  and  provided  their  answer 
should  prove  satisfactory,  all  the  necessary  regulations  shall 
be  made  to  effect  peace  and  harmony."  (7.)  At  the  same  time 
Tennessee  explained  and  justified  their  action  of  withholding 
from  the  North  Carolina  Synod  the  title  Lutheran,  and  of 
appointing  laymen,  "farmers,"  as  they  were  styled  by  North 
Carolina,  to  constitute  the  committee.  "It  was  believed,"  David 
Henkel  declared  with  respect  to  the  latter  point,  "laymen  would 
act  more  impartially,  since  the  ministers  are  more  immediately 
concerned  in  this  controversy.  Neither  can  I  discover  that 
all  the  farmers  are  so  contemptible  a  class  of  people  that 
Mr.  Sherer  could  possibly  be  offended  at  the  appointment!" 
(R.  1825,7.)  Regarding  the  first  point  Synod  declared:  "We 
must  here  observe  that  we  cannot  consistently  grant  to  the 
Synod  of  North  Carolina  this  title  [Lutheran],  because  we 
maintain  that  they  departed  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  .  .  . 
We  therefore  entreat  them  not  to  be  offended  when  at  this  time 
we  cannot  grant  the  desired  title,  but  to  be  contented  until 
a  union  with  respect  to  doctrine  shall  have  been  effected." 
(R.  1825,  7.)  In  accordance  herewith  the  letter  to  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  was  addressed  as  follows :  "To  the  Rev.  Synod 
of  North  Carolina  who  assume  the  title  Lutheran;  but  which 
we  at  this  time,  for  the  reason  aforesaid,  dispute.  Well-beloved 
in  the  Lord,  according  to  your  persons!"    (R.  1825,  7.) 

99.  Debates  at  Organ  and  St.  Paul's  Churches.  —  Ac- 
cording to  her  resolutions  of   1825,  Tennessee  was  ready  to 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  177 

establish  peace  and  harmony  with  the  North  Carolina  Synod. 
But  one  proviso  had  been  added  by  Tennessee,  limiting  this 
action  as  follows:  "Provided  their  [North  Carolina's]  answer 
should  prove  satisfactory."  If  such,  however,  should  not  be 
the  case,  they  proposed  public  discussions  of  the  differences. 
The  minutes  continue:  "But  if  in  case  their  answers  should 
not  prove  satisfactory,  that  we  propose  to  them  to  appoint 
a  certain  time  and  place,  and  that  each  party  appoint  a  speaker, 
for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  disputed  doctrines,  so  that 
the  assembly,  which  may  be  present,  may  discover  the  differ- 
ence; and  that  also  all  the  arguments,  on  both  sides,  may 
afterwards  be  published."  (R.  1825,  7.)  In  the  following  year, 
when  the  questions  preferred  were  still  unanswered  by  North 
Carolina,  Tennessee  resolved:  "This  Synod  have  made  sundry 
proposals  to  the  North  Carolina  connection  for  the  purpose 
of  amicably  adjusting  the  difference  which  exists  with  respect 
to  doctrine  and  other  differences,  but  said  connection  have 
hitherto  refused  to  comply  with  any  of  the  proposals.  Al- 
though it  seems  to  be  in  vain  to  make  any  further  propo- 
sitions, yet  this  Synod  deem  it  their  duty  to  adopt  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions:  1.  That  the  Revs.  Adam  Miller,  Daniel 
Moser,  and  David  Henkel  be  authorized  to  proclaim  and  hold 
a  public  meeting  at  or  near  the  Organ  Church,  Rowan  Co., 
N.  C.  They  shall  continue  said  meeting  at  least  three  days, 
and  preach  on  the  disputed  points  of  doctrine.  2.  That  they 
invite  the  Revs.  C.  A.  Stork  and  Daniel  Sherer,  who  reside  near 
said  Organ  Church,  to  attend  said  meeting,  and  give  them  an 
opportunity  of  alleging  their  objections  and  proving  their  doc- 
trines. Further,  that  as  many  of  the  other  ministers  belong- 
ing to  the  North  Carolina  connection  as  may  be  conveniently 
notified  be  also  invited  to  attend  for  the  same  purpose.  This 
will  afford  an  opportunity  to  a  number  of  people  to  ascertain 
which  party  have  deviated  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  This 
meeting  shall,  if  God  permit,  commence  on  the  4th  day  of  next 
November."  (R.  1826,  5.)  The  public  meeting  was  duly  pro- 
claimed at  Organ  Church  in  Rowan  Co.,  N.  C,  on  the  4th  of 
November.  A  notice  was  inserted  into  the  weekly  paper,  and 
some  of  the  ministers  were  individually  requested  to  attend. 
However,  not  one  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  ministers  put 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  12 


178  •  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

in  his  appearance,  or  made  any  official  statement  of  their 
reasons  for  not  attending.  Persons  who  had  visited  Rev.  Stork 
quoted  him  as  having  said:  "Let  them  [the  committee]  come 
to  our  Synod,  which  is  the  proper  place  to  discuss  these  points." 
(R.  1827,  5.)  Stork's  remark  suggested  the  arrangement  of 
a  second  debate  in  connection  with  the  prospective  meeting  of 
the  North  Carolina  Synod  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  Lincoln  Co., 
beginning  May  7,  1827.  The  Tennessee  Report  of  1827  records: 
"On  the  day  appointed  [November  4,  1826],  Messrs.  Moser  and 
Henkel  attended  [the  meeting  at  the  Organ  Church]  ;  but  none 
of  the  ministers  whom  they  had  invited.  Whereupon  sundry  re- 
spectable members  of  the  Lutheran  community  [in  Lincoln  Co.] 
requested  the  committee  [of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  Moser  and 
Henkel]  to  renew  this  invitation,  and  to  make  another  appoint- 
ment. The  same  request  was  also  made  by  the  Lutheran  Joint 
Committee  of,  this  county  [composed  of  members  of  several 
Lutheran  congregations  in  Lincoln  County],  at  their  session  on 
the  9th  of  last  December  [1826].  Accordingly,  Messrs.  Moser 
and  Henkel  renewed  the  invitation,  and  proclaimed  another 
meeting."  (25.)  The  request  of  the  Lutheran  Joint  Committee 
reads  as  follows:  "To  Lutherans.  The  Lutheran  Tennessee 
Synod  had  appointed  a  committee  for  the  purpose  of  publicly 
debating  some  points  of  doctrine,  which  are  in  dispute  between 
the  aforesaid  Synod,  and  that  which  is  commonly  called  the 
Synod  of  North  Carolina  and  adjoining  States.  Some  members 
of  the  latter  were  invited  and  notified  by  the  committee  to 
attend  at  Organ  Church,  on  the  4th  ult.,  for  the  purpose  of 
reciprocally  discussing  the  aforesaid  points  of  doctrine.  Two 
of  the  committee  attended,  but  none  of  the  ministers  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod.  Whatever  reasons  they  may  have  had 
for  not  attending,  we,  the  members  of  several  Lutheran  con- 
gregations in  this  county,  being  assembled  and  constituting 
a  joint  committee  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the  internal 
government  of  the  same,  request  said  committee  to  proclaim 
another  public  meeting  at  a  convenient  place  for  the  aforesaid 
purpose,  and  to  invite  the  members  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  to  attend  the  same.  We  also  hereby  request  the  mem- 
bers of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to  meet  the  committee  [of 
Tennessee]  in  a  friendly  manner,  in  order  to  discuss  the  doc- 
trines in  dispute."     Moser  and  Henkel  responded:    "We  .  .  . 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  179 

acquiesce  in  your  request,  and  deem  it  pertinent  to  the  mani- 
festation of  the  truth."  (26.)  They  also  published  a  procla- 
mation, inviting  the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  to 
attend  a  public  meeting  to  be  held  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  Lin- 
coln Co.,  "to  commence  on  the  day  after  you  shall  have  ad- 
journed, and  to  continue  at  least  three  days."  (R.  1827,  27.) 
Again  invitations  and  notices  of  the  projected  meeting  were 
printed,  and  a  copy  was  sent  to  each  of  the  ministers  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  a  few  months  prior  to  their  session. 
And  when  the  North  Carolina  Synod  was  convened,  by  special 
messenger,  a  letter  was  sent  to  the  president  for  presentation 
to  Synod,  inviting  them  to  attend  the  proposed  debate,  at  the 
same  time  asking  them  to  give  their  reasons  in  case  they  should 
refuse  to  comply  with  the  request.  On  the  following  day  the 
messenger,  Mr.  Rudisill,  applied  for  an  answer,  and  again  on 
the  day  of  adjournment;  but  in  vain.  The  Report  of  1827 
records :  "Mr.  Rudisill  handed  this  letter  to  the  president,  who, 
taking  it,  replied  that  it  was  not  properly  directed  to  them; 
notwithstanding  it  should  be  given  to  a  committee  appointed 
by  this  Synod,  who  should  report  on  the  same.  On  the  next 
day  Mr.  Rudisill  applied  for  an  answer,  but  he  received  none. 
On  Wednesday,  the  day  of  their  adjournment,  Mr.  Rudisill 
again  requested  an  answer,  but  he  again  received  none.  Neither 
did  the  Synod  assign  any  reason  for  their  refusal.  Whereupon 
Mr.  Rudisill  publicly  proclaimed  that  Messrs.  Moser  and  Hen- 
kel  would  attend  on  the  next  day,  i.  e.,  on  Thursday,  and  dis- 
course upon  these  disputed  topics,  and  invited  all  who  were 
present  to  attend.  Accordingly,  Messrs.  Moser  and  Henkel  at- 
tended, but  none  of  the  ministerium  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  appeared.  The  most  of  them,  or  perhaps  all,  had  started 
on  their  way  home.  The  members  of  the  church  who  were 
present  requested  David  Henkel  to  discourse  on  a  few  of  those 
disputed  points,  with  which  he  complied.  After  his  discourse 
was  ended,  it  was  concluded  that  it  was  not  necessary  then  to 
pursue  the  subject  any  further.  The  congregation,  who  were 
present,  nominated  a  majority  of  the  members  of  this  com- 
mittee to  draw  up  the  above  statements.  It  was  resolved  that 
this  report  shall  be  laid  before  the  next  session  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  and  that  the  same  shall  be  requested  to  annex  it  to  the 
report   of   their   transactions.     It   was    further   resolved  that 


180  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

David  Henkel  be  requested  to  write  a  treatise,  in  order  to 
show  the  propriety  and  Scriptural  grounds  for  the  debate  on 
the  disputed  points  of  doctrine,  which  was  offered  to  the  minis- 
ters of  the  North  Carolina  Synod."  (R.  1827,  31  f.)  Thus 
the  repeated  and  cordial  offers  on  the  part  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  to  discuss  and  settle  the  differences  were  ignored  and 
spurned  by  the  North  Carolina  Synod.  David  Henkel  wrote: 
"As  the  committee,  who  gave  them  the  last  invitation  to  at- 
tend to  public  debate,  knew  from  past  experience  that  to  ad- 
dress the  North  Carolina  Synod  with  the  addition  'so  called' 
was  offensive,  and  was  made  a  plea  to  evade  a  public  trial, 
they  addressed  some  of  the  principal  ministers  thereof  agree- 
ably to  etiquette,  by  their  personal  names,  and  including  all 
the  others,  believing  that  no  rational  man  would  be  offended 
to  be  called  by  his  own  name.  Neither  did  I  hear  that  any 
of  them  objected  to  the  address  as  offensive,  nor  to  any  of 
the  propositions  for  the  manner  of  conducting  the  debate.  Not- 
withstanding this,  and  although  they  accepted  a  letter  directed 
to  them  also  by  the  committee,  and  promised  the  bearer  to 
return  an  answer,  yet  they  treated  both  the  invitation  and 
letter  with  silent  contempt."  (35.)  The  repeated  endeavors 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod  to  draw  the  false  Lutherans  out  of 
their  holes  failed.  The  Lutheran  Church  of  America  was 
destined  to  sink  even  deeper  into  the  mire  of  indifferentism, 
unionism,  and  sectarianism. 

100.  Characteristic  Address  of  Moser  and  Henkel.  — 
The  truly  Lutheran  spirit  in  which  Tennessee  endeavored  to 
bring  about  unity  and  peace  with  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
appears  from  the  following  letter,  published  in  connection  with 
the  debates  proposed  in  the  interest  of  union,  and  dated, 
"Lincoln  Co.,  N.  C,  December  10,  1826":  "To  the  Revs.  Charles 
A.  Stork,  G.  Shober,  Jacob  Sherer,  and  Daniel  Sherer,  and  all 
other  ministers  belonging  to  their  Synod.  —  Sirs!  You  call 
yourselves  Lutherans,  and  we  call  ourselves  the  same;  not- 
withstanding there  is  a  division.  You  have  accused  us  of 
teaching  erroneous  doctrines,  and  we,  notwithstanding  the  ap- 
pellation you  give  yourselves,  deny  that  your  doctrines  cor- 
respond with  the  same  or  with  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is 
hence  somewhat  difficult  for  some  professors  of  Lutheranism 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  181 

to  determine  with  which  party  to  associate,  as  they  have  not 
sufficient  information  on  the  subject.  We  know  no  method 
which  would  be  better  calculated  to  afford  the  people  infor- 
mation and  an  opportunity  for  both  parties  to  prove  their  accu- 
sations than  to  meet  each  other,  and  debate  the  points  in  dis- 
pute publicly,  according  to  the  rules  of  decorum.  —  Whereas 
we  are  informed  that  you  intend  to  hold  your  next  synod  in 
St.  Paul's  Church  in  this  county,  on  the  first  Sunday  in  next 
May,  why  we  wish  to  try  your  doctrines,  and  why  we  wish 
you  to  try  ours  by  the  Augustan  Confession  and  the  afore- 
said symbolical  books,  is  because  the  important  question  in  the 
dispute  is,  Who  are  the  genuine  and  who  the  spurious  Lu- 
therans? For  it  is  known  that  Lutheran  ministers  are  pledged 
to  maintain  the  Augustan  Confession.  But  if  you  should  at 
said  meeting  declare  that  the  Augustan  Confession  contains 
false  doctrine,  and  that  Dr.  Luther  erred  in  any  of  the  doc- 
trines which  are  here  proposed  for  discussion,  we  shall  then, 
in  that  case,  be  willing  to  appeal  exclusively  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. —  Whatever  private  misunderstanding  may  have  existed 
between  us  heretofore,  we  notwithstanding  intend  to  meet  you 
in  a  friendly  manner,  without  attempting  to  wound  your  feel- 
ings by  personal  reflections.  That  we  intend  publicly  to  con- 
tradict your  doctrines  as  erroneous  we  beg  you  not  to  consider 
as  an  insult,  as  we  expect  and  are  willing  for  you  to  treat  ours 
in  the  same  manner.  We  pray  you  as  our  former  brethren,  do 
not  despise  and  reject  those  proposals,  as  a  compliance  with 
them  may  have  the  salutary  effect  to  convince  either  the  one 
or  the  other  party  of  the  truth,  and  we  are  confident  it  will 
be  beneficial  to  many  of  the  hearers.  —  We  are  willing  to  for- 
give all  private  conduct  which  we  conceive  erroneous  and 
criminal  in  you.  You  ought  also  to  be  willing  to  forgive  what 
you  consider  the  same  in  us.  But  as  we  differ  with  you  in  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion,  an  ecclesias- 
tical union  is  impracticable  until  the  one  or  the  other  party 
be  clearly  refuted  and  convinced.  —  We  remain  yours,  respect- 
fully, Daniel  Moser.    David  Henkel."    (R.  1827,  27.) 

101.  Probing  Orthodoxy  of  Pennsylvania  Synod. — In 
the  interest  of  doctrinal  clarity  and  Christian  unity  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod,  in  1823,  addressed  to  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  the 


182  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

following  questions:  "1.  Do  ye  believe  that  Holy  Baptism  per- 
formed with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  effects 
remission  for  sins,  delivers  from  death  and  Satan,  and  gives 
admittance  into  everlasting  life  to  all  such  as  believe,  accord- 
ing to  God's  promises?  2.  Do  ye  believe  that  the  true  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  present,  administered,  and  received 
under  the  external  signs  of  bread  and  wine?  Do  ye  believe 
that  the  unbelieving  communicants  also  eat  and  drink  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ?  We  do  not  ask  whether  they  receive  re- 
mission for  their  sins,  but  simply,  whether  they  also  eat  and 
drink  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  3.  Ought  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  worshiped  as  true  God  and  man  in  one  person?  4.  Ought 
the  Evangelic  Lutheran  Church,  endeavor  to  be  united  with  any 
religious  denomination,  whose  doctrines  are  contrary  to  the 
Augustan  Confession  of  faith?  Or,  is  it  proper  for  Lutherans 
to  commune  with  such?"  (R.  1825,  9.)  The  Pennsylvania 
Synod,  which  immediately  prior  to  that  time  had  been  plan- 
ning to  establish  a  union  seminary  with  the  German  Reformed 
and  to  enter  into  organic  union  with  that  body,  treated  the 
request  with  silent  contempt.  Two  years  later  Tennessee, 
patiently  and  humbly,  renewed  the  questions  with  the  follow- 
ing preamble:  "In  the  year  of  our  Lord  1823,  a  few  questions 
were  preferred  to  your  honorable  body  by  this  Synod,  but  as 
no  answers  have  been  received,  and  as  the  reasons  thereof  are 
not  known,  we  [Daniel  Moser,  Ambrose  Henkel,  John  Ram- 
sauer,  Peter  Hoyle]  were  appointed  by  our  Synod  to  renew  the 
request,  and  to  solicit  you  to  comply  with  the  same.  We  most 
humbly  beseech  you  to  make  known  the  reasons  of  your  hope 
that  is  in  you,  because  we  believe  if  this  be  done,  it  will  con- 
tribute towards  restoring  peace  and  tranquillity  among  all 
genuine  Lutherans.  We,  therefore,  renew  the  following  ques- 
tions," etc.  (R.  1825,  8  f . )  "It  was  also  resolved,"  the  Report 
of  1825  continues,  "that  the  Secretary  of  this  Synod  be  ordered 
to  address  a  friendly  letter  to  the  Rev.  Muhlenberg,  member  of 
the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  his 
counsel  relative  to  the  present  affairs  of  the  Church."  (9.) 
However,  these  letters  also  remained  unanswered.  But,  even 
this  did  not  exasperate,  nor  exhaust  the  patience  of,  Tennessee, 
as  appears  from  the  following  entry  in  the  minutes  of  1826: 
"At  our  last  session  a  few  theological  questions  were  submitted 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  183 

to  the  reverend  Synod  of  East  Pennsylvania,  and  a  letter  to 
the  Rev.  Muhlenberg ;  but  we  received  no  answer,  neither  from 
the  Synod  nor  from  Mr.  Muhlenberg.  The  cause  of  this  delay 
we  do  not  know;  but  we  indulge  the  hope  of  receiving  satis- 
factory answers  before  our  next  session."  (R.  1826,  6.)  In  the 
same  Report  we  read:  "Several  letters  from  Pennsylvania  [not 
the  Synod]  were  read  in  which  David  Henkel  is  particularly 
requested  to  visit  that  State  for  the  purpose  of  preaching,  and 
arguing  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Re- 
solved, That  this  Synod  also  solicit  him  to  undertake  this  task. 
He  agreed  to  do  so,  provided  he  can  arrange  his  other  business 
so  as  to  be  enabled."  (9.)  In  the  following  year,  however,  as 
no  answer  had  arrived  from  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  Tennessee 
made  the  following  declaration,  which  was  directed  also  against 
the  North  Carolina  Synod:  "Whereas  there  are  sundry  minis- 
ters who  appear  under  the  disguise  of  Lutherans,  notwith- 
standing [they]  deny  the  Lutheran  doctrines,  and  as  they  are 
patronized  by  several  synods,  this  body  deemed  it  expedient 
and  to  have  a  Scriptural  privilege  to  demand  of  other  bodies 
answers  to  some  theological  questions,  in  order  to  ascertain 
whether  they  differ  in  points  of  doctrine  from  this  body.  Ac- 
cordingly, they  submitted  a  few  theological  questions  to  the 
reverend  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  (now  East  Pennsylvania),  and 
have  waited  patiently  four  years  for  an  answer.  But  no 
answer  was  received.  The  secretary  was  also  ordered  by  the 
session  of  1825  to  address  a  friendly  letter  on  the  subject  to 
the  Rev.  Muhlenberg.  The  secrtary  complied  with  this  order ; 
but  Mr.  Muhlenberg  has  not  as  yet  returned  an  answer.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  ascertain  the  sentiments  of  the  several 
synods,  as  well  as  of  individual  ministers  on  sundry  points  of 
doctrine,  it  was  resolved,  1.  That  there  shall  be  a  pastoral  ad- 
dress directed  to  the  Lutheran  community,  in  which  shall  be 
shown  what  this  body  deem  to  be  the  genuine  Lutheran  doc- 
trines relative  to  such  points  as  are  in  dispute.  2.  That  the 
several  Synods,  as  well  as  individual  ministers  shall  be  re- 
quested, in  the  preface  of  the  aforesaid  contemplated  address, 
to  peruse  and  examine  it;  and  then,  in  a  formal  manner,  either 
justify  it  as  correct,  or  condemn  it  as  erroneous.  That  every 
synod  and  minister  who  shall  be  silent  after  having  had  an 
opportunity  of  perusing  it  shall  be  considered  as  fully  sane- 


184  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

tioning  all  its  contents  as  correct,  although  they  should  teach 
or  patronize  a  contrary  doctrine.  3.  That  David  Henkel  shall 
compile  and  prepare  said  book  for  publication,  and  that  the 
other  ministers  of  this  body  shall  assist  him  in  it.  .  .  .  This 
address  is  intended  to  be  published  both  in  the  German  and 
English  languages."  (R.  1827,  6  f.)  Also  from  the  Ohio  Synod, 
which  at  that  time  practically  identified  itself  with  the  in- 
differentistic  attitude  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  Tennessee 
received  but  little  encouragement  in  her  efforts  at  purifying 
the  Lutheran  Church  from  the  leaven  of  sectarianism.  Says 
Sheatsley:  "The  minutes  [of  the  Ohio  Synod  of  1825]  report 
that  David  Henkel  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  placed  several  theo- 
logical questions  before  Synod.  These  were  discussed  in  the 
ministerial  meeting  and  answered,  but  as  many  of  the  older 
heads  were  absent,  the  answers  should  first  be  sent  to  them 
and  then  forwarded  to  Pastor  Henkel.  What  the  questions 
were  we  have  no  means  of  determining  [no  doubt,  they  were 
the  same  questions  asked  the  Pennsylvania  Synod],  but,  judg- 
ing from  the  ability  and  bent  of  the  doughty  David  Henkel, 
we  may  surmise  that  the  questions  involved  some  difficulties. 
In  the  following  year  Synod  resolved  that  it  could  not  answer 
these  questions,  since  it  is  not  our  purpose  at  our  meetings  to 
discuss  theological  questions,  but  to  consider  the  general  wel- 
fare of  the  Church.  This  did  not  betoken  indifference  [?]  to 
doctrine,  but  it  was  then  like  it  is  now  a  Joint  Synod;  there 
was  little  or  no  time  for  the  discussion  of  these  matters." 
(History,  73.) 

TENNESSEE  JUSTIFYING  HER  PROCEDURE. 

102.  Confession  of  Truth  a  Christian  Duty.  —  It  ap- 
pears from  the  procedure  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  as  well  as 
from  the  resolution  of  1827,  quoted  in  the  preceding  paragraph, 
that  Tennessee  felt  justified  in  demanding  a  show-down  on  the 
part  of  the  American  Lutheran  synods,  which  had  persistently 
refused  to  reveal  their  colors.  However,  being  unionists,  in- 
differentists,  and  masked  or  open  Calvinists,  these  false  Lu- 
therans resented  such  a  demand  as  obtrusive,  arrogant,  and 
impudent.  Hence  their  contemptuous  silence.  However,  also 
in  this  matter  Tennessee  realized  that  they  were  only  asking 
what,  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  it  was  their  solemn  duty 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  185 

to  demand.  For  to  confess  the  faith  which  is  in  him  is  not 
only  the  privilege  of  a  Christian,  but  also  an  obligation  and 
a  debt  which  he  owes  his  brethren.  Accordingly,  when,  in  1827, 
the  committee  reported  how  all  efforts  to  induce  the  Carolina 
and  Pennsylvania  Synods  to  reveal  their  colors  and  to  give 
testimony  of  their  faith  as  to  the  doctrines  of  Baptism,  the 
Lord's  Supper,  etc.,  had  been  rebuked  with  silent  contempt, 
Tennessee  passed  the  resolutions  quoted  in  the  preceding  para- 
graph. They  felt  called  upon  publicly  to  justify  their  pro- 
cedure; and  this  all  the  more  so  because  a  member  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  had  declared  "that  it  was  not  only 
improper,  but  also  sinful  to  argue  publicly  on  religious  sub- 
jects." (R.  1827,  36.)  David  Henkel,  therefore,  in  a  treatise 
appended  to  the  Report  of  1827,  endeavored  to  show  the  pro- 
priety and  the  Scriptural  grounds  for  the  public  debate  pro- 
posed to  the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod.  How 
Tennessee  justified  her  actions  appears  from  the  following 
quotations  culled  from  this  treatise:  "The  members  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,"  says  David  Henkel,  "are  pledged  by  their 
confirmation  vows  to  support  and  to  adhere  to  her  doctrines 
and  discipline.  Now  as  it  is  not  a  matter  of  little  importance 
to  break  such  vows,  it  is  therefore  highly  interesting  for  every 
member  to  know  who  of  the  ministers  and  which  of  the  synods 
have  departed  from  the  confession  of  faith  they  have  vowed  to 
maintain,  as  a  connection  with  such  would  be  a  partaking  of 
their  errors."  (33.)  "Because  all  Lutherans  are  pledged  to 
maintain  the  doctrines  of  their  confession  of  faith,  it  may 
therefore  be  legally  required  of  any  one  to  stand  an  examina- 
tion, if  it  be  believed  that  he  has  deviated  from  the  same."  (36.) 
"The  members  of  the  Lutheran  Church  at  the  time  of  their 
confirmation  declare  that  they  believe  the  doctrines  as  held 
by  the  same,  and  every  minister  is  solemnly  pledged  to  main- 
tain the  Augustan  Confession.  Independently  of  Synods,  the 
Augustan  Confession  of  Faith  is  the  point  of  union  of  all 
Lutherans,  and  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  other 
denominations.  As  all  bear  the  same  name,  and  are  pledged 
to  maintain  the  same  creed,  they  are  viewed  as  one  body. 
Therefore  one  member  is  accountable  to  another,  and  it  is  one 
minister's  duty  to  watch  the  other's  official  conduct,  as  the 
doctrines  taught  by  one  are  ascribed  to  the  others,  because 


186  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

they  constitute  one  body.  How  does  a  man  become  partaker 
of  another's  guilt  but  by  being  in  connection  with  him,  and 
not  reproving  it?  1  Tim.  5,  22."  (37.)  "Now  as  one  Lutheran 
minister's  doctrine  is  ascribed  to  another,  why  should  the  one 
not  have  the  right  to  bring  the  other  to  an  account,  provided 
he  believes  that  he  deviates  from  the  confession  they  are  both 
pledged  to  maintain?  The  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod  call  themselves  Lutherans,  but  as  we  believe  that  they 
propagate  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Augustan  Confession,  we 
considered  it  necessary  to  require  of  them  to  stand  an  exami- 
nation. It  is  necessary  to  correct  a  wrong  opinion,  which  is, 
that  Lutheran  ministers  are  at  liberty  to  deviate  from  the 
Augustan  Confession  whereinsoever  they  conceive  it  as  er- 
roneous. Some  ministers  have  declared  that  they  did  not  care 
what  the  Augustan  Confession  teaches,  that  they  simply  taught 
the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures;  further,  that  Luther  was  only 
a  man,  and  was  therefore  liable  to  err.  In  answer  to  this, 
I  observe  that  Lutheran  ministers  have  no  right  to  deviate 
from  any  article  of  this  Confession  because  the  whole  of  it  is 
viewed  by  the  Lutheran  community  as  true  and  Scriptural. 
Let  them  remember  their  solemn  vows!  Such  as  think  proper 
to  deviate,  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  the  community.  It 
must,  however,  be  admitted  that  if  any  one  should  discover  that 
this  confession  is  unscriptural,  he  would  be  justifiable  in  re- 
nouncing it.  By  doing  so  no  one  would  be  deceived.  If  there 
are  errors  in  this  confession,  why  should  any  man  who  has  dis- 
covered them  yet  pretend  to  preach  under  its  covert?  Such  as 
believe  that  this  Confession  contains  errors  practise  a  twofold 
fraud.  The  one  is,  that  they  cause  Lutherans  to  think  that 
they  hold  the  same  doctrines  as  they  do  themselves,  when  yet 
they  do  not.  The  other  is  (provided  it  be  true  what  they 
affirm ) ,  that  they  encourage  the  people  in  those  errors,  because 
they  pretend  to  support  the  very  confession  which  contains 
them.  That  the  Bible  is  the  proper  rule  of  doctrine  must  be 
confessed;  yet  the  question  is,  Does  the  Augustan  Confession 
contradict  it  ?  That  Luther  was  a  man,  and  therefore  liable  to 
err,  is  not  denied;  but  that  he  did  err  with  regard  to  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Augustan  Confession  remains  to  be 
proven.    But  if  he  erred,  why  do  such  as  believe  this  call  them- 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  187 

selves  Lutherans?  Such  practise  a  fraud  by  being  called  Lu- 
therans, when  they  affirm  that  Luther  taught  erroneous  doc- 
trines; or  else  [they]  must  own  that,  by  being  called  after 
him,  they  sanction  such  errors."   (37  f. ) 

103.  Truth  Always  Seeks  the  Light.  —  In  his  justifica- 
tion of  the  procedure  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  David  Henkel 
continues  as  follows:  "The  intention  of  the  public  debate 
which  was  offered  to  the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod 
was  to  afford  them  an  opportunity  of  manifesting  the  doc- 
trines we  teach,  and  to  prove  them  as  erroneous.  The  same 
[opportunity]  we  would  also  had  to  have  treated  theirs  in  like 
manner.  The  propositions  which  were  made  were  calculated 
to  have  brought  all  these  things  to  light.  They  would  not  only 
have  offered  the  hearers  who  might  have  been  present  the 
opportunity  of  knowing  the  difference,  and  arguments  on  each 
side,  but  the  debates  might  also  have  been  committed  to  paper 
and  published,  and  thus  the  whole  Lutheran  community  might 
have  been  judges  in  this  controversy.  When  a  doctrine  is  in 
dispute  between  two  parties,  how  shall  the  public  decide  when 
they  never  heard  the  opposite  arguments?  Is  it  rational  to 
condemn  either  party  without  a  trial?  Whilst  the  deeds  of 
men  are  to  be  concealed,  there  are  just  grounds  for  believing 
that  they  are  evil.  Our  blessed  Savior  says,  'For  every  one 
that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light, 
lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved.  But  he  that  doeth  the  truth 
cometh  to  the  light  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest  that 
they  are  wrought  in  God.'  John  3,  20.  21.  No  man  who  is 
confident  that  he  has  the  truth  on  his  side  will  ever  evade 
coming  to  the  light;  for  he  is  not  ashamed  to  profess  and 
vindicate  the  truth;  and  though  it  should  be  scrutinized  to 
the  utmost,  yet  he  knows  that  thereby,  like  gold  passing 
through  the  fire,  it  shall  become  more  brilliant.  Even  the 
man  who  is  diffident  with  respect  to  his  doctrines,  yet  having 
an  honest  disposition,  never  objects  to  be  brought  to  the  light; 
for  he  considers  that  no  greater  favor  could  be  shown  him  than 
that  his  errors  be  overthrown,  and  he  be  led  into  the  paths 
of  truth.  But  the  man  who  knows  that  he  cannot  defend  his 
doctrines  upon  Scriptural  grounds,  and  yet  possesses  too  high 
an  estimation  of  himself,  hates  to  be  brought  to  the  light,  for 


188  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

he  knows  that  his  errors  will  be  unmasked;  'for  every  one 
that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light, 
lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved.'  Why  do  men  make  so  many 
shifts  to  evade  a  public  trial  of  the  doctrines,  but  a  conscious- 
ness of  being  in  an  error  which  their  pride  does  not  suffer  to 
be  publicly  exposed?  Many  a  man  in  a  hasty  ill  humor  con- 
demns a  doctrine  merely  because  the  man  whom  he  considers 
his  enemy  vindicates  it;  and  though  he  should  afterwards  be 
clearly  convinced,  yet  he  believes  it  to  be  beneath  his  dignity 
to  make  a  recantation,  and  thus  throughout  all  his  days  he  is 
tormented  with  a  guilty  conscience.  In  the  days  of  the  Refor- 
mation public  debates  were  highly  conducive  to  manifest  the 
errors  of  the  papists.  When  Luther  confronted  his  opponents 
in  the  presence  of  multitudes,  it  was  that  many  souls  got  con- 
vinced of  the  truth,  which  before  were  kept  in  ignorance.  Had 
he  refused  to  appear,  especially  before  the  Diet  at  Worms,  what 
would  have  been  the  result?  Though  he  knew  that  his  life 
was  in  danger,  if  he  appeared,  yet  he  also  knew  that  the 
cause  he  had  espoused  would  have  suffered,  provided  he  evaded 
a  public  test  of  his  doctrines.  The  Papists  having  been  taught 
by  experience  that  the  public  debates  with  Luther  proved  in- 
jurious to  their  party,  they  avoided  them  as  much  as  they 
could  and  employed  various  stratagems  to  destroy  him  and  his 
cause.  Luther  says:  'The  court  of  Rome  most  horribly  fears, 
and  shamefully  flees  from,  a  Christian  council.'  Had  this 
principle  been  uniformly  followed  in  the  days  of  Luther  that 
it  is  sinful  to  dispute  on  points  of  doctrine,  the  errors  of  the 
Papish  Church  could  have  been  impregnable;  and  those  who 
bear  the  name  of  Christian  might  perhaps  yet  groan  under 
papal  superstition  and  tyranny.  .  .  .  Thousands  have  joined 
churches  with  whose  peculiar  doctrines  they  are  not  acquainted, 
and  even  do  not  know  whether  their  government  is  republican, 
aristocratical,  or  monarchical.  They  are  satisfied  with  what 
they  hear  from  their  ministers,  without  even  examining  their 
creeds  or  forms  of  government.  Such  being  ignorant,  they  are 
already  prepared  for  a  state  of  slavery.  They  who  so  easily 
submit  to  an  ecclesiastical  slavery  may  also  by  degrees,  by  the 
same  means,  be  led  to  sacrifice  their  civil  liberty.  How  is  it 
possible  that  people  can  with  any  degree  of  safety  be  in  con- 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  189 

nection  with  such  ministers  as  are  publicly  impeached  with 
erroneous  doctrines,  and  yet  are  not  willing  to  be  brought  to 
light?  Ought  not  every  person  conclude:  If  such  ministers 
believed  that  they  had  nothing  but  the  truth  on  their  side, 
they  would  freely  embrace  every  opportunity  of  coming  to  the 
light,  so  that  they  might  show  that  their  works  are  wrought 
in  God,  and  refute  their  opponents'  calumnies?  That  a  public 
debate  would  create  animosity  is  no  reason  that  it  should  be 
omitted.  Would  it  offend  real  Christians?  By  no  means.  It 
indeed  might  offend  false  teachers  and  their  votaries,  who  for 
the  want  of  argument  would  substitute  the  ebullitions  of  their 
anger.  But  what  Christian  can  imagine  that  no  error  should 
be  exposed,  lest  the  persons  who  are  guilty  might  be  offended  ?" 
(38  ff.) 

104.  Arguments  Continued.  — David  Henkel  furthermore 
showed  from  Phil.  2,  15;  1  Pet.  2,  9;  1  Pet.  3,  15.  16,  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  shine  as  lights  in  the  world,  to 
instruct  the  ignorant,  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man  who 
asks  them  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  them,  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  the  following  conclusion:  "Now  if  it  be  every  Chris- 
tian's duty  to  answer  those  who  interrogate  them  respecting 
the  grounds  of  their  faith,  how  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God 
do  such  synods  and  ministers  act  when  they  refuse  answering 
some  important  theological  questions  either  by  writing  or 
public  interview!  Do  they  refuse  because  they  consider  the 
persons  who  interrogate  them  too  far  beneath  their  notice? 
Does  not  this  (if  it  be  the  case)  indicate  that  they  are  pos- 
sessed with  the  pride  of  the  devil  ?  What !  poor  sinful  mortals, 
do  they  exalt  themselves  above  their  fellow-men?  Or  are  they 
ashamed  to  let  their  sentiments  be  known?  Are  they  sensible 
that  they  cannot  rationally  defend  their  doctrines  if  they  were 
scrutinized?  Or,  indeed,  have  they  the  truth  on  their  side, 
and  yet  fear  to  let  it  be  known  that  they  believe  it,  lest  they 
should  become  unpopular?  Alas!  there  are  too  many  whose 
sentiments  may  be  correct,  yet  through  fear  of  getting  the  ill 
will  of  some  others  will  not  answer  the  most  important  ques- 
tions. Let  such  men  remember,  that,  whilst  they  wish  to  keep 
the  truth  in  darkness,  with  a  view  to  please  opposite  parties, 
that  they  are  vile  hypocrites ;    and  let  them  tremble !   St.  Paul 


190  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

says:  'For  if  I  yet  pleased  men,  I  should  not  be  the  servant  of 
Christ.'  Gal.  1,  10.  We  have  asked  the  ministers  of  the  North 
Carolina  Synod  for  the  reasons  of  the  hope  that  is  in  them,  or 
properly,  for  the  proofs  of  their  doctrines;  and,  agreeably  to 
the  last  invitation  given  them,  they  might  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  showing  the  reasonableness  of  their  doctrines.  Now 
as  they  have  neglected  to  endeavor  to  convince  us,  why  do  they 
warn  the  people  against  us,  especially  since  they  are  not  will- 
ing to  confront  us  in  a  public  debate?"  (42  f.)  Henkel  con- 
tinues: "We,  as  it  has  been  already  said,  are  represented  by 
the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  as  enemies  of  the 
promulgation  of  the  Gospel.  Particularly  I  am  charged  with 
teaching  the  most  dangerous  heresies,  as  may  be  seen  from 
a  scurrilous  pamphlet  written  by  their  president,  Mr.  Shober. 
How  is  such  a  dangerous  man  to  be  treated  by  Christian 
pastors?  Is  he  to  be  at  liberty  without  reproof?  Is  he  to  be 
opposed  behind  his  back,  and  defeated  by  arguments,  or  rather 
invectives,  to  which  he  has  no  opportunity  of  replying?  No. 
For  such  treatment  has  rather  a  tendency  to  strengthen  him 
in  his  errors,  and  cause  such  as  are  led  by  him  to  conclude 
that  his  doctrines  are  incontestable;  otherwise  the  learned 
and  pious  clergy  would  confront  him  in  a  public  interview. 
St.  Paul  describes  the  duty  of  a  bishop  in  this  respect:  that 
he  should  'hold  fast  the  faithful  Word  as  he  hath  been  taught, 
that  he  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both  to  exhort  and  to 
convince  the  gainsayers.'  He  adds:  'For  there  are  many  un- 
ruly and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  specially  they  of  the  cir- 
cumcision, whose  mouth  must  be  stopped,  who  subvert  whole 
houses,  teaching  things  which  they  ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre's 
sake.'  Titus  1,  9.  11.  As  these  show  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
a  bishop  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gainsayer,  and  to  stop 
his  mouth,  the  question  may  be  asked,  How  is  this  to  be  done? 
It  cannot  be  done  otherwise  than  to  propose  to  the  gainsayer 
an  interview,  and  if  he  attend  to  it,  to  refute  his  arguments. 
But  if  he  refuses  to  attend,  the  bishop  has  discharged  his  duty; 
for  the  gainsayer  thereby  shows  that  he  is  already  convinced, 
and  his  mouth  stopped,  because,  if  he  believed  that  he  could 
not  be  refuted,  he  would  by  no  means  avoid  the  light.  Again, 
when  the  gainsayer  in  a  public  debate  is  closely  pursued  by 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  191 

the  truth,  he  uses  invectives  instead  of  arguments,  which  is 
a  plain  indication  of  his  mouth  being  stopped.  A  false  teacher 
is  said  to  be  a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing,  which  signifies  to  be 
under  the  covert  of  a  servant  of  God.  .  .  .  Now,  indeed,  is  it 
possible  that  the  ministers  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  repre- 
sent me  as  the  most  dangerous  wolf,  and  yet  can  see  me  come 
among  their  congregations,  and  gain  a  goodly  number  of  their 
people,  without  even  being  willing  to  confront  me  in  a  public 
debate,  which  would  be  calculated  to  show  me  in  mine  origi- 
nality. Why  do  they  flee?  Do  they  not  feel  for  their  flocks? 
To  pronounce  them  hirelings  would  seem  uncharitable.  How 
could  I  otherwise  acquit  them  of  such  a  charge,  unless  I  would 
suppose  that  they  in  reality  do  not  consider  me  as  a  false 
teacher?  Otherwise  they  would  not  flee,  but  stand  public  test. 
But  that  they  have  called  me  a  false  teacher  is  perhaps  owing 
to  the  violence  of  the  old  man  in  them,  whom  they  have  not 
yet  crucified  through  the  Spirit."  (44  ff.)  Finally,  in  defending 
the  propriety  of  the  procedure  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  David 
Henkel  refers  to  the  example  of  Christ,  who  "answered  the 
questions  of  the  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  scribes,  and  the  devil. 
Now,  as  Christ  debated  with  wicked  men,  yea,  with  the  devil 
himself,  with  what  face  can  any  man  say,  It  is  wrong  to  dis- 
pute on  doctrinal  topics?"  (45  f.)  David  Henkel  concludes: 
"Whereas  all  Lutherans  are  pledged  to  their  creed  by  a  solemn 
vow,  it  must  be  a  matter  of  great  importance  for  every  one 
to  know  the  sentiments  of  the  ministers  under  whose  care  he 
may  be;  for  whosoever  supports  such  as  are  inimical  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  acts  contrary  to  his  vow.  Every  Lu- 
theran ought  to  be  certain,  and  able  to  prove  by  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  his  creed  contains  erroneous  doctrine,  before  he 
adopts  a  contrary  one,  lest  he  incur  the  crime  of  perjury. 
The  ministry  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  are  charged  with 
denying  the  most  important  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and  have  been  requested  to  come  to  a  reciprocal  trial,  which 
they  have  obstinately  refused.  Now,  what  is  the  duty  of  the 
people  under  their  care?  Ought  they  not  to  urge  them  to 
come  to  a  reciprocal  trial?  How  can  they  consider  themselves 
safe  under  a  ministry  who  are  not  willing  to  come  to  the 
light!"   (47.) 


192  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

DOCTRINAL  BASIS. 

105.  Attitude  toward  the  Scriptures.  —  Regarding  the 
constitution  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  we  read  in  the  Report 
of  1827:  "Whereas  the  constitution  [of  1820]  of  this  Synod 
is  blended  with  the  transactions  of  the  session  at  which  it  was 
formed,  and  as  the  unalterable  articles  are  not  distinguished 
from  those  that  are  local  and  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  as 
the  language  is  not  sufficiently  explicit,  it  was  deemed  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  supply  those  defects,  to  supply  another.  Con- 
sequently a  committee  was  appointed  to  draw  up  one  for  exami- 
nation." The  committee  complied  with  the  order,  drew  up 
a  constitution,  and  laid  it  before  the  body.  Every  one  of  its 
articles  having  been  critically  examined,  Synod  resolved: 
"1.  That  this  constitution  shall  be  annexed  to  this  journal 
[Report] ;  but  it  shall  not  now  be  adopted  nor  ratified,  so 
that  the  absent  ministers,  as  well  as  the  congregations  may 
have  the  opportunity  of  alleging  their  probable  objections,  or 
of  proposing  necessary  amendments.  This  also  affords  an 
opportunity  for  the  members  of  the  present  session  to  re- 
examine it.  2.  But  that,  if  no  objection  of  importance  shall 
be  alleged,  or  necessary  amendments  proposed  by  any  member 
of  this  body,  or  by  any  congregation,  and  be  laid  before  the 
next  session,  it  shall  then  be  considered  as  the  adopted  and 
ratified  constitution  of  this  Synod."  (9.)  In  the  following 
year  the  new  constitution  was  adopted  and  ratified  in  a  some- 
what revised  form,  and  appended  to  the  minutes  of  the  same 
year.  The  English  version  is  found  also  in  the  Report  of  1853. 
The  First  Article  of  this  constitution  reads  as  follows:  "The 
Holy  Scriptures,  or  the  inspired  writings  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  shall  be  the  only  rule  of  doctrine  and  church- 
discipline.  The  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  any  transla- 
tions is  to  be  judged  according  to  the  original  tongues,  in  which 
the  Scriptures  were  first  written."  (B.  1828,  13;  R.  1853,  20.) 
The  Introduction  declared:  "Nothing  relative  to  doctrines  and 
church-discipline  ought  to  be  transacted  according  to  the  mere 
will  of  the  majority  or  minority,  but  in  strict  conformity  with 
Holy  Writ."  (B.  1828,  12;  R.  1853, 19.)  According  to  the  con- 
stitution of  1828,  therefore,  Tennessee  recognized  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  only  norm  and  rule  of  doctrine  and  life.    This 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  193 

had  been  the  position  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  from  the  very- 
beginning.  As  early  as  1822  they  declared:  "Forasmuch  as 
the  Holy  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of  matters  respecting  faith 
and  church-discipline,  and  because  the  Augsburg  Confession  of 
Faith  is  a  pure  emanation  from  the  Bible,  and  comprises  the 
most  important  doctrines  of  faith  and  discipline,  hence  it  must 
always  remain  valid.  Therefore  our  Synod  can  neither  be 
governed  by  a  majority  nor  a  minority,  now  nor  ever  hereafter, 
with  respect  to  doctrine  and  discipline.  This  is  the  reason  why 
nothing  can  be  introduced  among  us,  now  nor  at  any  time  here- 
after, which  may  be  repugnant  to  the  Bible  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  Faith.  Neither  the  majority  nor  the  minority 
shall  determine  what  our  doctrine  and  discipline  are,  because 
they  are  already  determined  in  the  above-named  rule.  But  that 
we  assemble  from  time  to  time  is  neither  to  form  new  rules, 
doctrines,  nor  traditions,  but  as  united  instruments  in  the 
hand  of  God  we  wish  to  promulgate  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
and  to  execute  the  rules  already  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. But  with  respect  to  local  and  temporary  regulations, 
such  as  the  place  and  time  of  meeting,  and  such  like  things, 
which  do  not  interfere  with  matters  of  faith  and  discipline,  the 
Synod  suit  themselves  to  the  conveniences  of  the  most  of  their 
members.  We  refer  the  reader  to  the  Seventh,  Fifteenth,  and 
Twenty-eighth  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith, 
where  he  may  find  more  satisfactory  instructions  with  respect 
to  these  things."  (R.  1822,  9  f.) 

106.  Augsburg  Confession  Adopted  with  a  "Quia."  — 
From  the  very  beginning  the  Tennessee  Synod  regarded  the 
Book  of  Concord  as  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  teachings  of 
Holy  Writ,  although  at  first  only  the  Augsburg  Confession  was 
officially  received  into  the  constitution.  At  its  organization  in 
1820  Synod  declared:  "All  doctrines  of  faith  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  Life,  as  well  as  all  books  which  are  used  for 
public  worship  in  the  Church,  shall,  as  far  as  possible,  be 
arranged  and  observed  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  Especially  shall  the  youth  and  others 
who  have  need  thereof  in  our  Church  be  instructed  according 
to  the  Small  Catechism  of  Dr.  Luther,  as  has  been  the  custom 
hitherto.     Said  Catechism  shall  always  be  the  chief  catechism 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  13 


194  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

of  our  Church."  (4.)  "Whoever  will  be  a  teacher  shall 
solemnly  promise  that  he  will  teach  according  to  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church."  (5.)  The  minutes  of  1821  record:  "On  motion 
made  by  Mr.  Peter  Boger,  it  was  resolved  that  a  copy  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  likewise  a  copy  of  the  min- 
utes of  the  Synod,  shall  be  deposited  in  every  church."  (8.) 
The  Second  Article  of  the  new  constitution,  adopted  1828, 
reads  as  follows:  "The  Augustan  Confession  of  Faith,  com- 
prised in  twenty-eight  articles,  as  it  is  extant  in  the  book  en- 
titled 'The  Christian  Concordia,'  is  acknowledged  and  received 
by  this  body,  because  it  is  a  true  declaration  of  the  principal 
doctrines  of  faith  and  of  church-discipline.  Neither  does  it 
contain  anything  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  No  minister  shall 
therefore  be  allowed  to  teach  anything,  nor  shall  this  body 
transact  anything  that  may  be  repugnant  to  any  article  of  this 
Confession.  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  is  also  acknowledged 
and  received,  because  it  contains  a  compendium  of  Scriptural 
doctrines,  and  is  of  great  utility  in  the  catechising  of  youth." 
(R.  1853,  21.)  The  "Remarks"  appended  to  this  article  ex- 
plain: "Creeds  fraught  with  human  tradition  and  opinions  are 
rejected  by  this  body.  Neither  is  the  authority  of  a  general 
council  considered  as  valid,  or  sufficient  to  establish  any  point 
of  doctrine.  .  .  .  Now  there  is  a  considerable  difference  when 
a  body  of  Christians  receive  a  human  composition  [symbol] 
as  an  unerring  guide  in  addition  to  the  Scriptures,  or  when 
they  receive  it  to  show  their  views  as  respecting  points  of  doc- 
trine. Lutherans  acknowledge  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only 
rule  of  doctrine  and  discipline;  nevertheless  they  receive  the 
Augustan  Confession  because  it  exhibits  the  same  views  they 
have  on  the  Scriptures,  and  is  a  formal  declaration  of  what 
they  believe.  But  if  it  were  possible  to  prove  that  the  views 
on  the  points  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Augustan  Confession 
were  erroneous,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  this  body  to  re- 
nounce it;  nevertheless,  in  that  case  they  could  by  no  means 
be  Lutherans,  as  they  would  have  rejected  the  views  of  Lu- 
therans. As  there  have  been  various  editions  of  the  Augustan 
Confession,  this  body  have  chosen  the  one  which  is  extant  in 
the  book  entitled  'The  Christian  Concordia,'  because  they  are 
well  assured  that  that  is  genuine."    (22.)      The  revised  con- 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  195 

stitution  of  1866  recognized  the  entire  Book  of  Concord  as 
being  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  thereby 
merely  giving  expression  to  the  position  which  the  Tennessee 
Synod  had  actually  occupied  from  the  very  beginning.  In  their 
letter  of  December  10,  1826,  addressed  to  the  pastors  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  Daniel  Moser  and  David  Henkel  de- 
clared :  "We  also  wish  to  appeal  to  the  book  called  'Concordia,' 
as  it  is  one  of  the  principal  symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran 
Church."  (R.  1827,28.)  The  sixth  of  the  "Alterable  Articles" 
of  the  proposed  constitution  submitted  to  synod  in  1827  reads: 
"The  book  entitled  'Concordia,'  which  contains  the  Symbolical 
Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  shall  be  viewed  as  a  directory 
in  Theology."  (24.)  After  visiting  the  Tennessee  Synod  in 
1855,  Brohm  wrote:  "Creditable  witnesses  have  given  me  the 
assurance  that,  as  far  as  their  persons  are  concerned,  all  the 
pastors  of  the  Synod  adhere  to  the  entire  Concordia."  (Luthe- 
raner  11,  78.)  When  the  Tennessee  Synod  was  organized,  it 
was  the  only  American  Lutheran  synod  which  was  pledged  to 
the  Lutheran  Confession,  not  merely  with  a  quatenus,  i.  e.,  as 
far  as  it  agrees  with  the  Bible,  but  with  an  honest  quia,  i.  e., 
because  it  agrees  with  the  Bible. 

CONFESSION  ENFORCED. 

107.  Confession  No  Mere  Dead  Letter.  —  That  Tennessee 
did  not  regard  the  Lutheran  Confession  as  a  mere  dead  docu- 
ment appears  from  her  attitude  toward  the  Pennsylvania, 
North  Carolina,  and  other  unfaithful  Lutheran  synods,  as 
delineated  above.  The  treatise  appended  to  the  Report  of  1827 
declared:  It  is  necessary  to  correct  the  wrong  opinion  that 
Lutheran  ministers  are  at  liberty  to  deviate  from  the  Augus- 
tan Confession  whereinsoever  they  conceive  it  as  erroneous. 
As  long  as  a  minister  pretends  to  be  a  Lutheran  minister, 
he  has  no  right  to  deviate  from  any  article  of  this  Confession. 
Let  him  remember  his  vows!  If  any  one  should  discover  that 
the  Augsburg  Confession  is  unscriptural,  he  is  justified  and 
bound  to  renounce  it.  But  if  he  continues  to  preach  under  its 
cover,  he  is  guilty  of  a  twofold  fraud.  He  deceives  the  Church 
by  causing  Lutherans  to  believe  that  he  agrees  with  them.  And 
he  deceives  the  Christians  by  failing  to  warn  them  against 


196  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

what  he  regards  erroneous  teaching.  If  Luther  and  the  Lu- 
theran Confessions  erred,  "why  do  such  as  believe  this  call 
themselves  Lutherans?  Such  practise  a  fraud  by  being  called 
Lutherans,  when  they  affirm  that  Luther  taught  erroneous  doc- 
trines; or  else  must  own  that,  by  being  called  after  him,  they 
sanction  such  errors."  (38.)  Tennessee  was  not  satisfied  with 
being  called  Lutheran.  They  were  seriously  determined  to  be 
Lutherans.  The  Lutheran  Confessions  were  the  living  norm  of 
both  their  preaching  and  their  practise.  In  publishing  books, 
receiving  pastors  and  teachers,  examining  candidates,  in  nego- 
tiating with  other  synods,  Tennessee  was  scrupulously  guided 
and  governed  by  the  Lutheran  Symbols.  In  1821  they  resolved 
on  a  Liturgy  to  be  prepared  by  Paul  Henkel  "according  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible."  (7.)  In  1826  it 
was  resolved  that  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism  should  be  trans- 
lated into  the  English  language,  and  that  Ambrose  Henkel  was 
to  provide  both  for  an  accurate  translation  and  for  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Catechism.  (7.)  Numerous  instances  where 
pastors  were  carefully  examined  with  respect  to  doctrine  be- 
fore they  were  admitted  to  membership  are  recorded  in  the 
synodical  minutes.  In  the  Keport  of  1831,  e.g.,  we  read: 
"Mr.  Rankin  [who  previously  had  been  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church]  presented  himself  to  the  committee.  He  was 
first  made  a  full  member  of  the  Lutheran  Church  by  confirma- 
tion. Then,  having  taken  the  most  solemn  pledge,  he  was 
ordained  a  pastor  of  the  same  Church  with  prayer  and  laying 
on  of  hands."  (8.)  The  Report  of  1832  records:  "Whereas 
Mr.  Rankin,  as  appears  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Bonham,  addressed 
to  Synod,  and  from  other  trustworthy  sources  from  Green 
County,  Tenn.,  has  departed  from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  both 
as  to  doctrine  and  discipline,  it  was  resolved  that  Mr.  Rankin 
be  requested  to  attend  the  next  session  of  our  Synod,  and  there 
defend  himself  against  the  above-mentioned  charges,  otherwise 
we  can  regard  him  as  member  of  this  Synod  no  longer."  (9.  16.) 
In  the  Report  of  1827  we  find  the  following  entry:  "It  was 
considered  necessary  that  one  of  the  pastors  should  visit  all 
the  other  pastors,  and  their  congregations,  and  examine  whether 
there  be  any  who  deviate  from  the  doctrines  and  rules  of  our 
Church.  But  as  none  of  the  pastors  who  were  present  could 
undertake  this  visit,  it  was  resolved  that  any  of  the  absent 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  197 

ministers  who  may  volunteer  his  services  shall  hereby  be 
authorized  to  make  this  visit,  and  to  reprove  all  errors  that 
may  come  within  his  knowledge.  Whatever  pastor  may  under- 
take this  visit  is  requested  to  inform  the  secretary  of  his  in- 
tention, and  to  hand  in  a  report  of  his  journey  at  the  next 
session."  (12.) 

108.  Symbols  Regarded  as  Necessary.  —  In  the  "Re- 
marks," appended  to  the  Second  Article  of  the  constitution, 
adopted  1828,  the  necessity  of  symbols  is  explained  as  follows: 
"Now  the  question  may  be  put,  Is  not  the  Augustan  Confession 
a  human  composition?  Why  is  it  adopted  by  this  body? 
Answer:  The  Apostle  Peter  exhorts  Christians  to  'be  ready 
always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  them 
a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  them,'  etc.  1  Pet.  3,  15.  16. 
From  the  history  of  the  Reformation  it  is  evident  that  the 
Protestants  were  called  upon  to  deliver  their  confession  of 
faith  before  the  diet  assembled  at  Augsburg.  Every  Christian 
is  not  only  privileged,  but  also  commanded  to  confess  what  he 
believes.  Although  the  Scriptures  be  a  sufficient  guide  without 
any  other,  and  though  there  be  but  one  explanation  of  them 
which  can  be  correct,  yet  not  all  who  profess  Christianity  ex- 
plain them  alike,  for  their  views  are  widely  different.  Hence, 
as  all  do  not  explain  the  Scriptures  alike,  it  could  not  be 
known  what  each  body  of  Christians  believed;  consequently 
others  could  not  know  whether  they  should  fellowship  them, 
provided  they  had  not  a  formal  declaration  of  their  views  on 
the  points  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  But  when 
a  body  of  Christians  make  a  formal  declaration  of  their  views 
on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  others  are  enabled  to  judge  whether 
they  be  correct,  and  thus  may  know  with  whom  to  hold  Chris- 
tian fellowship.  .  .  .  Lutherans  acknowledge  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  the  only  rule  of  doctrine  and  discipline;  nevertheless 
they  receive  the  Augustan  Confession  because  it  exhibits  the 
same  views  they  have  on  the  Scriptures,  and  is  a  formal  decla- 
ration of  what  they  believe."  (22.)  According  to  his  own  re- 
port of  a  conversation  with  a  pastor  of  the  General  Synod, 
dated  December  2,  1824,  Andrew  Henkel  answered  as  follows 
the  objection  that  the  Scriptures  are  sufficient,  and  that  for 
that  reason  symbols  are  superfluous:    "I  told  him  then  that 


198  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

he  had  departed  from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and,  of  course, 
from  the  Lutheran  Church.  He  then  told  me  that  the  Bible 
was  his  creed,  and  not  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  the 
said  Confession  contained  things  which  were  not  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. I  then  replied  and  said  that  every  fanatic  and  sectarian 
said  so,  and  that  Lutherans  as  much  considered  the  Scriptures 
to  be  the  only  guide  in  doctrines  as  he  or  any  other  person  did, 
but  that  it  was  necessary  to  have  some  standard  by  which  men 
could  know  how  the  Scriptures  were  understood  by  this  or  the 
other  denominations,  as  men  varied  materially  in  their  explana- 
tions of  the  Scriptures.  I  then  demanded  of  him  to  show 
wherein  the  Confession  did  not  correspond  with  the  Scriptures. 
He  referred  me  to  the  word  'real'  in  the  article  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  added  that  that  word  was  inserted  by  the  hot- 
headed Luther." 

ANTI-ROMANISTIC  ATTITUDE. 

109.  Church  Governed  by  Word  of  God  Alone.  —  The 
Tennessee  Synod  did  not  only  realize  the  importance  of  the 
Symbols  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  had  correctly  appre- 
hended also  their  spirit  and  doctrinal  content.  This  appears 
from  her  uncompromising  attitude  toward  the  Romanistic,  Re- 
formed, Methodistic,  and  unionistic  tendencies  prevailing  in  the 
Lutheran  synods  and  congregations  at  the  time  of  her  organi- 
zation. As  to  polity,  the  cast  of  the  first  American  Lutheran 
synods  and  congregations  was  of  the  hierarchical  type.  The 
congregations  were  subordinate  to  their  pastors,  the  pastors 
and  congregations  to  their  respective  synods,  as  a  rule  called 
ministeriums,  because,  essentially,  they  were  bodies  composed 
of  ministers.  David  Henkel  had  experienced  the  tyranny  to 
which  such  an  order  would  naturally  lead  and  lend  itself.  The 
Tennessee  Synod  must  be  credited  with  being  the  first,  in 
a  large  measure,  to  recognize,  confess,  and  defend  the  in- 
alienable rights  of  all  Christians  and  Christian  congregations. 
The  Henkels  must  be  regarded  as  champions  also  of  the  basic 
truth  of  all  normal  church-government,  viz.,  that  no  one  is  to 
govern  the  Christian  Church,  save  Christ  and  His  Word  alone, 
not  the  pastor,  nor  the  ministerium,  nor  the  synod,  nor  any 
sort  of  majority.  (1820,  23;  1828,  12.)  In  1820,  when  the 
leaders  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  in  matters  of  right  and 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  199 

wrong,  demanded  subjection  to  the  majority  of  votes,  the 
Henkels  maintained:  "We  thought  the  doctrine  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  of  which  we  were  assured  that  it  can  be 
proved  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  ought  to  be  of  greater 
authority  to  us  than  the  voice  of  a  majority  of  men  who  are 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  and  order  of  our  Church."  (1820,23.) 
Nothing  short  of  clear  proof  and  conviction  from  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  would  satisfy  the  Henkels. 
In  1822  Tennessee  declared:  "Our  Synod  can  neither  be  gov- 
erned by  a  majority  nor  a  minority,  now  nor  ever  hereafter, 
with  respect  to  doctrine  and  discipline.  .  .  .  Neither  the 
majority  nor  the  minority  shall  determine  what  our  doctrine 
and  discipline  are  to  be,  because  they  are  already  determined 
in  the  above-named  rule.  .  .  .  But  with  respect  to  local  and 
temporary  regulations,  such  as  the  place  and  time  of  meeting, 
and  such  like  things,  which  do  not  interfere  with  matters  of 
faith  and  discipline,  the  Synod  suit  themselves  to  the  con- 
veniences of  the  most  of  their  members."  (R.  1822,  9.)  In 
a  "Note"  appended  to  the  above  declaration,  David  Henkel  de- 
fines the  position  of  Tennessee  as  follows:  "Herein  is  the 
difference  between  the  government  of  the  pure  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  and  the  government  of  the  General  Synod. 
The  established  rule  of  the  pure  Christian  Church  is  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  her  supreme  Head,  Jesus  Christ.  Christ,  by 
His  Word,  governs  the  Church  in  the  doctrines  of  faith  and 
discipline;  there  needeth  no  majority  of  votes  to  determine. 
In  such  matters  as  do  not  immediately  interfere  with  the  doc- 
trines of  faith  and  government  of  the  Church,  as,  for  instance, 
to  appoint  the  time  and  place  for  the  meeting  of  a  synod,  or 
the  erection  of  a  synod,  and  such  like  things,  herein  our  Church 
doth  not  seek  to  exercise  any  authority,  but  granteth  liberty 
to  each  congregation  and  to  each  of  her  ministers  to  act  and 
do  as  they  judge  it  most  convenient  for  themselves.  No  one 
is  despised  for  not  joining  with  us  in  our  Synod;  no  one  is 
oppressed  who  is  not  in  conformity  with  us  in  matters  which 
are  not  essential  to  the  doctrine  of  faith.  Nothing  can  sepa- 
rate our  union  or  break  our  peace  with  any,  only  when  they 
deviate  from  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and  when  they 
compose  traditions  of  their  own  and  impose  them  on  others. 
A  majority  is  not  to  have  authority  over  any  one,  because  they 


200  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

have  no  power  to  impose  traditions  of  men  on  others  with  re- 
gard to  religion.  The  government  of  the  General  Synod  is 
altogether  otherwise.  ...  It  is  plainly  to  be  seen  in  her  con- 
stitution that  her  aim  is  to  impose  a  number  of  human  tra- 
ditions on  the  Church,  as,  for  instance,  that  no  synod  shall  be 
erected  in  any  State,  unless  there  are  six  ordained  ministers 
living  therein,  and  not  even  then  unless  they  are  authorized 
by  the  General  Synod.  The  General  Synod  is  to  be  governed 
by  a  majority;  if  it  were  not  so,  she  would  admit  that  every 
congregation  and  every  minister  should  act  agreeably  to  their 
own  advantage  in  matters  not  interfering  with  the  doctrines 
of  faith,  and  not  seek  such  universal  power,  by  which  they  may 
compel  men  to  act  according  to  the  will  of  a  majority.  The 
Church  of  God  on  earth  was  never  constantly  governed  right 
by  a  majority.  In  the  times  of  the  prophets  the  Church  was 
oppressed  by  a  majority.  .  .  .  How  was  it  in  the  time  of 
Christ?  How  did  the  majority  act  against  the  Savior?  Who 
was  right?  The  great  council  of  Jerusalem  and  thousands  of 
their  adherents,  or  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  the  few  of  His  dis- 
ciples who  were  despised  by  the  world?  How  was  it  in  the 
days  of  Luther?  What  was  he  against  millions  of  the  Papist 
Church?  And  yet  every  Protestant  will  confess  that  Luther's 
cause  was  just,  and  is  thankful  to  God  that  the  light  of  the 
Gospel  was  set  up  by  Luther.  But  supposing  that  Luther  had 
yielded  to  be  governed  by  a  majority  as  the  advocates  for 
a  General  Synod  insist,  or  wish  that  the  Church  should  be 
governed  by  a  majority,  might  we  not  have  remained  in  the 
ignorance  of  blind  popery  to  the  present  day?  The  govern- 
ment of  the  world  is  supported  by  a  majority,  and  thus,  many 
imagine  to  themselves,  it  ought  so  to  be  in  the  Church;  but 
they  are  greatly  mistaken!  Jesus  saith,  'My  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world/  and  consequently  not  His  manner  of  govern- 
ment. .  .  .  Jesus  Himself  hath  already  prescribed  all  things 
respecting  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  His  Church,  therefore 
we  need  no  General  Synod  to  give  us  prescriptions!  As 
touching  matters  not  essential,  as  appointing  the  time  and 
place  of  a  convention  or  the  like,  whereof  no  prescription  is 
given,  no  one  is  justifiable  to  give  any  prescription  or  direction, 
much  less  to  compel  any  one  thereto,  whereas  all  are  to  enjoy 
Christian  liberty.     See  Rom.  14;  Col.  2.    But  those  of  the  Gen- 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  201 

eral  Synod  undertake  to  erect  universal  directions  in  these 
matters,  or  else  they  would  not  name  their  Synod  Universal. 
Whosoever  submits  himself  to  be  governed  by  a  majority 
must  be  such  as  trust  to  a  majority.  The  Scripture  saith: 
'Cursed  is  the  man  who  putteth  his  trust  in  man.'  Jer.  17." 
(R.  1822,  11  f.)  These  views  were  embodied  also  in  the  con- 
stitution of  1828.  In  the  explanatory  "Remarks"  to  the  Fourth 
Article  we  read:  "As  the  aforesaid  duties  [to  supply  laborers, 
detect  false  teachers,  examine  and  ordain  ministerial  candi- 
dates, etc.]  devolve  on  all  churches  and  ministers,  they  un- 
doubtedly have  the  privilege  to  perform  them  jointly,  i.  e.,  they 
may  constitute  a  synod.  But  no  Christian  synod  can  have 
legislative  powers,  consequently  have  no  right  to  make  rules 
for  churches.  All  necessary  and  salutary  rules  pertaining  to 
the  government  of  the  Church  are  prescribed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; therefore  every  body  of  men  who  make  rules  for  the 
Church  are  in  opposition  to  Christ.  To  make  rules  for 
the  Church  is  one  thing,  but  to  execute  these  rules  already 
made,  and  to  employ  the  proper  means  for  the  promulgation 
of  the  Gospel,  is  another.  The  latter,  but  by  no  means  the 
former,  is  the  business  of  this  body.  That  there  ought  to  be 
no  appeals  from  the  decisions  of  congregations  is  evident  from 
Matt.  18,  15—20."  (B.  1828,  20;  R.  1853,  25.)  Of  course,  ap- 
peals from  the  congregation  to  the  synod  as  a  higher  authority, 
to  which  the  congregation  is  subordinated,  were  meant.  The 
Introduction  to  the  constitution  says:  "The  rules  and  prin- 
ciples of  church-government  are  contained  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. Therefore  no  body  of  Christians  have  authority  to  dis- 
pense with,  or  alter  or  transact,  anything  contrary  to  them. 
Human  traditions  or  rules  impressed  upon  the  Church  as  neces- 
sary for  Christian  fellowship,  which  have  no  foundation  in  the 
Scriptures,  are  rejected  by  our  Savior.  Matt.  15,  9.  13.  14." 
Although,  in  executing  the  rules  of  the  Church,  different  times, 
persons,  and  local  circumstances  intervene,  as,  for  instance,  in 
one  age  and  country  one  language  is  prevalent,  but  not  in 
another  age,  and  perhaps  not  in  the  same  country  .  .  .,  never- 
theless, Christ  being  omniscient,  and  His  all-wise  Spirit  having 
inspired  His  apostles,  they  have  provided  the  Church  with 
salutary  rules,  which  are  applicable  to  all  persons  in  all 
places,   times,   and   circumstances.     Nothing  relative  to   doc- 


202  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

trines  and  church-discipline  ought  to  be  transacted  according 
to  mere  will  of  the  majority  or  minority,  but  in  strict  con- 
formity to  the  Scriptures.  Local  and  temporary  regulations, 
such  as  the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting  of  the  synod,  the 
ratio  of  representatives  from  congregations,  etc.,  may  be  varied 
for  the  sake  of  convenience,  hence  are  subject  to  be  altered, 
amended,  or  abolished  by  the  majority;  yet  they  ought  not  to 
attempt  to  make  their  decisions  in  such  cases  absolutely  obliga- 
tory upon  the  whole  community,  because  such  regulations  are 
only  subservient  to  the  execution  of  the  rules  which  are  founded 
upon  the  Scriptures."   (19.) 

110.  Antihierarchical  Principles  Practised.  —  The 
organization  of,  and  connection  with,  a  synod  was  regarded 
by  Tennessee  as  a  matter  not  of  divine  obligation,  but  of  Chris- 
tian wisdom  and  liberty.  No  congregation  was  condemned  or 
refused  fellowship  merely  because  it  refused  to  unite  organ- 
ically with  their  synod.  In  the  "Remarks"  to  the  Fourth 
Article  of  her  constitution  Tennessee  explains:  "When  minis- 
ters and  lay-delegates  are  assembled,  they  may  have  a  more 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  exigencies  of  the  whole  connection 
they  represent,  hence  are  the  better  enabled  to  impart  their 
counsel.  By  their  simultaneous  efforts,  vacant  churches  may 
be  supplied  with  ministerial  labors,  and  others  formed  and 
organized.  Indeed,  the  same  end  may  also  be  obtained  by 
individual  ministers  and  churches;  nevertheless,  as  it  fre- 
quently becomes  necessary  for  such  to  receive  cooperation  from 
their  brethren,  this  end  may  be  obtained  with  more  facility  by 
the  meeting  of  a  Synod."  (1853,25.)  According  to  Tennessee, 
then,  the  organization  of,  and  connection  with,  a  synod  is 
a  matter  of  Christian  liberty,  wisdom,  and  expediency.  But, 
while  not  opposed  to  synods  as  such,  Tennessee  most  strenu- 
ously objected  to  any  kind  of  human  autocracy  within  the 
synods  and  congregations.  When,  in  a  letter,  several  mem- 
bers of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  designated  Paul  Henkel  as 
"the  head"  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  the  latter  declared,  and 
could  do  so  truthfully,  that  their  Synod  "confesses  no  man 
as  its  head  save  the  one  and  only  God-man,  Jesus  Christ." 
(B.  1824,  10.)  The  fact  is  that,  in  the  beginning,  Tennessee 
was  even  without  standing  officers.    The  chairmen  were  elected 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  203 

and  changed  at  pleasure  even  during  the  sessions  of  the  same 
convention.  (B.  1820,  7.)  Largely,  her  opposition  to  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  also  was  rooted  in  her  determined  hostility  to  every 
form  of  Romanism.  (R.  1820,55;  1821,  17.)  "If  you  will  con- 
sider,"' they  said  to  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  which  had  joined 
the  General  Synod,  "what  pertains  to  true  Christianity,  you 
certainly  cannot  reasonably  desire  that  a  government  shall  be 
forced  upon  the  Church,  of  which  no  trace  can  be  found  in  the 
Bible."  (B.  1824,  Anhang  2.)  Indeed,  in  their  aversion  to  any 
and  every  form  of  synodical  dominion  over  the  congregations 
Tennessee  frequently  went  so  far  as  to  create  the  impression 
that  they  viewed  with  suspicion  and  as  questionable,  if  indeed 
not  as  directly  objectionable  and  sinful,  every  form  of  organi- 
zation of  synods  into  a  general  body.  On  this  point,  also  in 
her  criticism  of  the  General  Synod,  Tennessee  frequently  ran 
riot.  But,  though  occasionally  losing  her  balance  and  making 
a  wrong  application  of  her  antihierarchical  doctrine,  the  prin- 
ciple as  such  was  sound  to  the  core  and  truly  Lutheran.  When 
the  North  Carolina  Synod,  without  further  investigation,  an- 
nulled a  ban  of  excommunication  which  David  Henkel's  con- 
gregation had  imposed,  Tennessee  repudiated  the  action  as  an 
infringement  on  the  rights  of  the  congregation.  "For,"  said 
they,  "it  cannot  be  proven  anywhere  that  a  synod  has  authority 
to  break  the  decision  made  by  the  church  council  and  the  con- 
gregation. In  such  matters  a  congregation  has  greater  power 
than  any  synod."  (B.  1820,  20.)  In  agreement  herewith  the 
Fourth  Article  of  the  constitution  submitted  in  1827  provided: 
"But  this  Synod  shall  have  no  power  to  receive  appeals  from 
the  decision  of  congregations,  with  respect  to  the  excommuni- 
cation or  receiving  of  members.  For  every  congregation  in  this 
respect  is  independent  of  the  Synod."  The  German  version 
adds:  "Hence  Synod  cannot  change  or  annul  a  decision  of  any 
congregation  pertaining  to  the  exclusion  or  the  acceptance  of 
a  member."  (R.  1827,  22;  B.,  21.)  The  form  in  which  this 
article  was  finally  adopted  (1828)  reads:  "But  this  Synod 
shall  have  no  power  to  receive  appeals  from  the  decisions 
of,  nor  to  make  rules  nor  regulations  for,  congregations." 
(B.  1828,  19;  R.  1853,  25.)  Neither  did  the  Tennessee  Synod 
arrogate  to  itself  the  right  to  appoint  pastors  to  the  congre- 
gations or  to  remove  them.     The  Report  of  1824  records  con- 


204  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

cerning  Adam  Miller:  "This  young  man  displays  strong  in- 
clination for  preaching;  but  since  he  has  produced  no  regular 
call  from  a  congregation,  he  could  not  be  ordained."  ( 14. )  The 
Tennessee  Synod  claimed  no  power  whatever  over  the  indi- 
vidual congregations.  The  minutes  of  1825  record:  "It  is  re- 
ported that  this  Synod,  in  1821,  ordered  all  the  congregations 
not  to  suffer  any  minister  who  is  connected  with  the  General 
Synod  to  preach  in  their  meeting-houses.  Be  it  therefore  known 
to  all  whom  it  may  concern  that  there  was  no  such  a  reso- 
lution adopted;  although,  there  was  a  petition  handed  in,  sub- 
scribed by  three  congregations  in  Tennessee,  in  which  they 
stated  that  they  had  adopted  a  resolution  among  themselves 
not  to  suffer  a  minister  belonging  to  the  General  Synod  to 
preach  in  their  meeting-houses,  and  also  petitioned  the  Synod 
to  admonish  all  the  congregations  to  concur  with  their  reso- 
lution. But  the  Synod  sanctioned  their  resolution  only  in  part, 
in  so  far  as  not  to  be  connected  with  the  General  Synod;  yet 
the  Synod  do  not  arrogate  to  themselves  any  authority  to  pre- 
scribe to  any  congregation,  whom  they  shall  suffer  to  preach 
in  their  meeting-houses.  All  congregations  in  this  respect  are 
independent  of  the  Synod."  (R.  1825,  11;  1821,  7.)  The  Re- 
port of  1832  declared:  "This  body  arrogates  to  itself  no  power 
to  make  laws  and  rules  for  the  congregations,  because  it  is 
against  their  rights  and  liberties,  as  well  as  also  against  the 
Fourth  Article  of  our  constitution."  Indeed,  such  was  their 
care  not  to  exceed  their  authority  that,  e.  g.,  Synod,  super- 
scrupulously,  refrained  even  from  making  a  declaration  how 
to  further  the  instruction  of  the  young,  but  contented  itself 
with  merely  advising  "the  diverse  church  councils  and  congre- 
gations to  make  such  rules  and  arrangements  how  they  might 
most  fittingly  and  conveniently  (wie  es  fuer  sie  am  schicklich- 
sten  und  bequemsten  sei)  instruct  their  young."  (B.  1832,  9.) 
According  to  the  Fourth  Article  of  the  constitution  it  was  the 
business  of  Synod  "to  detect  and  expose  false  doctrines  and 
false  teachers."  But  the  "Remarks"  appended  to  this  article 
are  careful  to  explain:  "That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  this  body 
to  detect  erroneous  doctrines  and  false  teachers  does  by  no 
means  suppose  that  the  same  does  not  also  devolve  upon  in- 
dividual churches  and  ministers,  for  this  body  does  not  claim 
it  as  their  prerogative.     But  it  is  believed  that  this  duty  may 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  205 

be  performed  more  advantageously  by  a  synod."  (R.  1853,  25; 
B.  1828,  19. )  Even  the  right  of  examining  and  ordaining  minis- 
ters was  not  denied  to  the  congregation.  The  draft  of  the  con- 
stitution published  1827  declared:  "The  business  of  this  body 
shall  be  ...  to  examine  {if  requested)  candidates  for  the 
ministry  who  may  be  called  by  congregations,  and,  if  they  be 
found  qualified,  to  consecrate  them  with  the  imposition  of 
hands  and  prayer."  (R.  1827,  22.)  The  reading  adopted  in  1828 
ran  thus:  "The  business  of  this  body  shall  be  to  impart  their 
useful  advice  .  .  .  and,  upon  application,  to  examine  candidates 
for  the  ministry."  ( 1853,  24. )  The  "Remarks"  appended  offer 
this  explanation:  "Neither  does  this  body  claim  the  exclusive 
right  of  examining  and  ordaining  candidates  for  the  ministry. 
For  every  congregation  has  the  privilege  of  choosing  fit  persons 
for  their  ministers,  and  individual  pastors  have  the  authority 
to  perform  their  ordination.  This  is  evident  from  the  practise 
of  the  primitive  Christians,  as  well  as  from  the  Scriptures. 
But  when  any  congregation  shall  request  this  body  to  examine 
and  ordain  the  person  of  their  choice,  it  then  devolves  on  this 
body  to  perform  this  duty.  As  the  aforenamed  duties  devolve 
on  all  churches  and  ministers,  they  undoubtedly  have  the  privi- 
lege to  perform  them  jointly,  i.  e.,  they  may  constitute  a  synod. 
But  no  Christian  synod  can  have  legislative  powers,  conse- 
quently have  no  right  to  make  rules  for  churches."   ( 1853,  25. ) 

111.  Rights  of  Laymen  Recognized.  —  From  the  very 
beginning  the  Tennessee  Synod  vindicated  to  the  deputies  of 
the  congregations  the  right  not  merely  to  listen,  to  witness, 
and  to  testify,  when  called  upon  to  do  so  by  the  ministers,  as 
had  been  the  custom  in  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  but  also,  on 
equal  terms  with  the  pastors,  to  deliberate,  decide,  and  vote  on 
all  matters  submitted  to  Synod.  {Lutheraner  11,  166.)  Article 
Three  of  the  Constitution  declared:  "It  shall  not  be  allowed 
either  for  the  ministers  to  transact  any  business  exclusively 
of  the  lay  delegates,  or  for  the  lay  delegates  exclusively  of  the 
ministers;  provided  there  shall  be  both  ministers  and  lay 
delegates  present."  (B.  1828,  16;  R.  1853,23.)  The  "Remarks" 
appended,  add  the  following:  "It  is  not  the  privilege  and  duty 
of  the  clergy  alone  to  impart  their  counsel  in  ecclesiastical 
matters,  and  to  employ  means  for  the  promulgation  of  the 


206  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

Gospel,  but  also  of  other  Christians.  The  first  Christian 
council  was  convened  in  Jerusalem,  and  consisted  of  the 
apostles,  the  elders,  and  the  other  brethren.  They  decided 
the  question  whether  it  was  necessary  to  be  circumcised.  See 
Acts  15,  1 — 31.  The  apostles  were  inspired,  hence  could  have 
made  the  decision,  without  the  assistance  of  the  lay  brethren; 
but  it  appears  they  desired  no  such  prerogative.  This  precedent 
justifies  the  laity  in  being  in  council  with  the  clergy  for  the 
purpose  of  deliberating  on  the  most  important  ecclesiastical 
matters.  Christians,  in  common,  are  called  'a  chosen  genera- 
tion, a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,' 
and  they  are  'to  show  forth  the  praises  of  Him  who  hath  called 
them  out  of  darkness  into  His  marvelous  light.'  1  Pet.  2,  9. 
Now,  since  Christians  in  common  have  such  honorable  titles, 
sustain  such  a  high  dignity,  and  are  to  manifest  the  praises 
of  God,  it  may  be  concluded  that  they  have  the  same  rights 
in  church-government  as  the  clergy.  St.  Paul,  in  writing  to 
the  Corinthians,  said:  'Do  ye  not  know  that  the  saints  shall 
judge  the  world?  And  if  the  world  shall  be  judged  by  you, 
are  ye  unworthy  to  judge  the  smallest  matters?  Know  ye  not 
that  ye  shall  judge  angels?  how  much  more  things  that  per- 
tain to  this  life?'  1  Cor.  6,  2.  3.  Not  only  the  believing  minis- 
ters, but  also  the  laity  are  saints.  .  .  .  Now,  if  saints  shall 
judge  the  world,  even  the  angels,  why  should  they  not  also  be 
capable  and  privileged  to  transact  the  most  important  matters 
pertaining  to  the  Church?  That  laymen  should  exercise  equal 
rights  with  clergymen  in  church-government,  is  not  only  Scrip- 
tural, but  also  conducive  to  the  preservation  both  of  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  liberty.  .  .  .  From  the  history  of  the  Church  it 
appears  that  whenever  the  clergy  governed  without  the  laity, 
they  enslaved  the  people,  grasped  civil  authority,  and  perse- 
cuted those  who  detected  or  opposed  their  aspiring  views.  This 
not  only  has  been  the  case  under  the  reign  of  Popery,  but  also 
some  of  the  clergymen  who  called  themselves  Protestants  have 
been  the  most  bloody  persecutors."  (B.  1828,  17;  R.  1853,  23.) 
In  accordance  with  these  principles,  laymen  in  the  Tennessee 
Synod  were  also  represented  on,  or  even  exclusively  composed, 
most  important  committees.  Thus,  in  1824,  three  laymen  were 
elected  members  of  the  committee  which  was  to  confer  with  the 
North  Carolina  Synod  in  an  effort  to  remove  the  doctrinal 


THE  TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  207 

differences  separating  them.  "They  appointed  farmers,"  Jacob 
Sherer  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  in  a  letter,  remarked  con- 
temptuously, "to  instruct  us,  who  in  public  print  have  slan- 
dered us,  and  treated  us  scornfully  when  it  is  known  to  them 
that  the  priests'  lips  are  to  preserve  the  doctrine."  David 
Henkel,  then  secretary  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  however,  in 
a  "Note,"  recorded  in  the  Report  of  1825,  justified  the  action 
of  Tennessee.  Here  he  wrote:  "I  conceive  it  to  be  my  duty  to 
observe  that  it  is  truly  astonishing  that  farmers  should  not 
also,  as  well  as  ministers,  be  capable  of  judging  the  Christian 
doctrine.  Whenever  it  shall  be  proved  that  farmers  are  not  to 
read  the  Holy  Scriptures,  then  only  ought  they  to  be  excluded 
from  this  important  business.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the 
dark  ages  of  Popery  the  layman  was  not  permitted  to  judge 
in  religious  controversies,  and  it  seems  very  alarming  that 
Mr.  Sherer  has  expressed  a  similar  sentiment,  inasmuch  as  he 
considers  himself  much  offended  because  the  Synod  appointed 
laymen  or,  as  he  says,  farmers  to  constitute  the  committee. 
That  the  priests'  lips  are  to  preserve  the  doctrine  does  not 
prove  that  it  is  inexpedient  or  wrong  to  appoint  laymen  to 
assist  on  deciding  a  dispute.  It  was  believed  laymen  would 
act  more  impartially,  since  the  ministers  are  more  immediately 
concerned  in  this  controversy.  Neither  can  I  discover  that  all 
farmers  are  so  contemptible  a  class  of  people  (so  nieder- 
traechtige  Leute)  that  Mr.  Sherer  could  possibly  be  offended 
at  the  appointment!  If  in  case  the  committee  have  published 
anything,  which  is  contrary  to  truth,  Mr.  Sherer  is  at  liberty 
to  make  it  appear."   (R.  1825,  6.) 

ANTI-METHODISTIC  ATTITUDE. 

112.  Fanatics  Described. — At  the  time  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Tennessee  Synod  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America 
generally  was  suffering  with  a  threefold  malady:  Unionism, 
Reformedism,  and  Methodism.  Methodism  may  be  denned  as 
a  diseased  condition  of  Christianity,  causing  Christians  to  base 
their  assurance  of  salvation  not  on  the  gracious  promises  of 
God  in  the  objective  means  of  grace,  the  Word  and  Sacraments, 
but  on  feelings  and  experiences  produced  by  their  own  efforts 
and  according  to  their  own  methods.     As  the  years  rolled  on, 


208  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

the  early  Lutheran  Church  in  America  became  increasingly 
infected  with  this  poison  of  subjectivism  and  enthusiasm,  es- 
pecially its  English  portions.  Rev.  Larros  of  Eaton,  0.,  said 
in  a  letter  to  Paul  Henkel,  dated  August  2,  1821:  "I  remember 
when  eighteen  or  twenty  years  ago  many  among  the  Germans 
in  North  Carolina  were  awakened  as  to  their  salvation,  and 
we,  in  joyful  hope,  spared  no  trouble  teaching  and  instructing, 
in  order  to  make  of  them  men  for  the  kingdom  of  Jesus,  pre- 
serving the  Bible-religion,  that  even  then  one  could  notice  how 
some  were  flushed  and  puffed  up  with  pride.  This  was  evident 
especially  at  the  time  of  the  great  revival  of  the  English 
Church,  when,  at  the  large  meetings,  their  novices  ["Neu- 
linge,"  young  English  preachers]  admonished  the  people,  and, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  Church  and  the  depreciation  of  the 
older  ministers,  by  their  bold  and  arrogant  actions  indicated, 
that  they  understood  the  business  of  converting  the  people 
better  than  the  old  preachers,  and  this  without  being  called  to 
order  by  their  superiors.  Since  that  time  impudence  and  lust 
of  ruling  have  greatly  increased,  so  that  the  fruit  of  it  appears 
at  public  synods."  (B.  1821,35.)  The  Methodistic  doctrine  of 
conversion,  as  related  above,  was  a  point  of  dispute  also  be- 
tween the  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  Synods.  The  Ten- 
nessee Report  of  1820  states  this  difference  as  follows:  "Since 
our  opponents  [of  the  North  Carolina  Synod]  refuse  to  admit 
that  regeneration  is  wrought  in  the  manner  taught  by  our 
Church,  we  infer  that  they  believe  it  must  be  effected  in  an 
altogether  different  way.  For  almost  all  religionists  of  this 
time  teach  most  frequently  and  diligently  and  urge  most 
earnestly  that  one  must  experience  regeneration,  or  be  eternally 
lost.  We  are  also  accused  by  many  that  we  deny  the  doctrine 
of  regeneration.  Our  answer  is:  We  do  not  deny  the  doctrine 
of  regeneration  at  all;  moreover,  we  teach  it  as  well  as  our 
opponents.  But  that  regeneration  is  effected  in  the  manner  and 
by  the  means  such  as  they  teach  and  pretend,  this  we  cannot 
believe,  nor  do  we  admit  that  it  is  possible  in  this  way.  Some 
of  them  teach  and  maintain  that  regeneration  cannot  be 
wrought  in  any  other  way  than  by  fear  and  terror,  when  one, 
experiencing  true  contrition  and  sorrow  of  sin,  is  moved  to 
pray  and  cry  anxiously,  beseeching  the  Holy  Ghost  to  perform 
in  him  the  work  of  regeneration.     They  hold  that  the  Holy 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  209 

Ghost  can  operate  this  in  such  only  as  are  previously  brought 
into  this  state  of  fear  and  terror.  As  a  natural  birth  cannot 
be  effected  without  pain,  in  like  manner,  they  argue,  no  one 
could  be  born  anew  without  previously,  through  anguish  and 
fear,  having  experienced  pains  of  the  soul,  more  or  less.  Such 
teachers,  however,  fail  to  observe  that  by  this  example  they 
contradict  themselves.  For  in  a  natural  birth,  as  everybody 
knows,  only  the  mother  has  pain,  not  the  child,  while  accord- 
ing to  their  doctrine  the  child  ought  to  have  the  pain.  Who, 
therefore,  does  not  see  that  their  teaching  is  most  absurd  and 
questionable?  Now,  in  order  to  bring  about  regeneration  in 
the  manner  they  teach,  it  is  the  rule  to  preach  the  Law  and 
its  curse.  To  produce  the  required  pangs  of  the  soul,  the  poor 
people  are  threatened  with  the  devil,  eternal  death,  and  hell. 
The  intention  is  to  cause  a  sinner  to  pray  earnestly  in  order, 
by  such  prayer,  to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  produce  this 
result,  joint  prayers  are  said  to  contribute  the  most,  viz.,  when 
a  number  of  people  gather  and  strain  every  power  of  body  and 
soul  in  crying  and  screaming  to  move  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  even 
to  force  Him,  to  finish  the  work  of  regeneration.  They  imagine 
that,  by  their  own  exercises  in  prayer,  and  especially  by  their 
joint  prayers,  they  have  advanced  the  matter  and  earned  and 
obtained  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that,  He  [the  Holy  Ghost]  having 
united  with  their  exercises  and  labor,  the  work  of  regeneration 
was  finished  through  the  combined  operation  of  their  prayers 
and  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  acquired  by  them.  They  mis- 
take imaginations  for  divine  revelations.  And  the  sensations 
rising  from  such  imaginations  they  regard  as  effects  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  They  apply  to  themselves  what  the  Apostle  Paul 
writes  Rom.  8,  16:  'The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  They  declare:  We 
are  born  anew,  and  we  know  indeed  that  it  is  so,  for  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  given  testimony  to  our  spirit.  But  if  one  desires 
to  learn  how  He  had  given  this  testimony,  whether  they  had 
seen  Him  or  heard  Him,  or  in  what  manner  or  whereby  He 
had  given  such  assurance,  they  appeal  to  their  imaginations 
and  sensations,  from  which  also  something  peculiar,  like  an 
apparition,  may  come  to  them;  but  whatever  this  is  we  do 
not  know.  One  can  be  absolutely  sure,  however,  that  it  is 
Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  14 


210  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

not  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  as  soon  as  you  let  them  understand 
that  you  believe  that  they  have  been  deceived  and  you  endeavor 
to  lead  their  attention  to  the  testimonies  of  Holy  Scripture  in 
order  to  obtain  from  it  reliable  testimonies,  immediately  their 
anger  begins  to  rise,  their  countenance  becomes  disfigured,  and, 
alas,  with  some  already  a  fist  is  clenching  with  which  they 
strike  the  table  or  their  knees  and  declare  defiantly:  'I  don't 
care  anything  for  what  you  say;  it  is  none  of  your  business; 
I  know  that  I  am  born  of  God,  and  will  suffer  it  to  be  taken 
away  from  me  by  nobody,  by  no  learned  man,  nor  by  any 
devil;  what  I  know  I  do  know.'  There  is  a  reason,  why  such 
a  person  will  not  suffer  his  opinion  to  be  taken  from  him  by 
anybody,  and  he  need  not  fear  that  any  devil  will  rob  him  of 
it,  especially  when  he  is  ready  to  use  his  fist  in  defense  of  his 
opinion."    (B.  1820,  32  ff.) 

113.  Sober  Attitude  of  Tennessee  Synod.  —  In  oppo- 
sition to  the  subjectivism  of  the  Methodistic  enthusiasts  within 
the  Lutheran  synods,  Tennessee  based  the  certainty  of  salvation 
on  the  objective  means  of  grace,  placing  especial  emphasis  on 
the  well-known  comforting  passages  of  Holy  Writ  concerning 
Baptism,  such  as  John  3,  5;  Eph.  5,  23.  25.  26;  Titus  3,  5; 
1  Pet.  3,  20.  21;  Rom.  6,  3—5;  Acts  2,  38;  22,  16;  Gal.  3,' 
26.  27;  Mark  16,  16.  "These  passages  of  the  Bible,"  they 
said,  "show  us  that  we  are  not  to  seek  salvation  in  any  work 
which  we  ourselves  can  create  or  perform,  no  matter  whatever 
its  nature  may  be,  but  only  through  faith  on  the  Lord  and 
Savior  Christ,  who  alone  has  done  everything  for  us,  and 
through  the  grace  which  He  bestows  and  confers  on  us  in  Holy 
Baptism,  whereby  we  are  regenerated."  (B.  1820,34.)  Again: 
"From  the  passages  here  quoted  the  attentive  reader  is  able  to 
see  and  comprehend  that  regeneration  is  not  effected  in  the 
manner  as  some  teach."  It  was  evident  from  the  Scriptures, 
they  maintained,  that  Christ  referred  to  Baptism  when  He  de- 
clared that  no  one  can  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  unless  he  was 
born  again  of  the  water  and  the  Spirit.  They  explained:  Self- 
evidently  it  is  not  a  natural  power  or  effect  of  the  water  to 
wash  away  sin.  "Yet  we  see  that  the  washing  and  cleansing 
from  sin  is  effected  alone  [  ?]  through  Baptism,  and  that  by 
faith  alone  such  grace  is  appropriated.     Accordingly,  whoever 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  211 

believes  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.  Mark  16,  16."  (38.) 
In  this  passage,  Mark  16,  16,  Tennessee  declared,  "Christ  in 
a  few  and  clear  words  indicates  the  whole  condition  under 
which  a  man  can  be  saved.  It  consists  in  this,  that  he  believes 
that,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  what  He  has  done  and  suffered 
for  us,  God  will  forgive  all  our  sins,  and  that  by  faith,  in  Bap- 
tism, he  appropriates  such  promises  of  all  the  gifts  of  salva- 
tion which  God  imparts  to  man  for  Jesus'  sake.  This  also 
shows  us  that  man  cannot  be  saved  by  his  own  work  or  merit, 
but  alone  by  what  God  presents  and  imparts  to  him.  He  ob- 
tains faith  through  preaching,  which  is  by  the  Word  of  God, 
as  Paul  writes,  Rom.  10,  17.  Baptism  is  administered  by  the 
command  of  Jesus  Christ,  Matt.  28,  19,  through  the  service  of 
the  minister  of  the  Church.  In  this  way  God,  through  means, 
seeks  man  before  man  seeks  Him.  Accordingly,  for  having  been 
translated  into  the  state  of  salvation,  man  is  to  thank  God  and 
His  ordinances  alone,  not  himself,  his  merit,  his  own  works,  or 
his  experiences."  "Because  we  understand  and  teach  this 
matter  in  the  manner  indicated,  we  are  said  to  despise  prayer, 
declare  it  unnecessary,  and  teach  men  that  it  is  sufficient  for 
salvation  if  they  are  baptized  and  attend  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  that  nothing  else  is  needed.  To  this  we  answer:  Whoever 
is  baptized  and  has  true  faith  in  Christ,  is  in  need  of  nothing 
else  in  order  to  die  a  blessed  death;  if  he  should  die  thus,  he 
would  be  saved,  for  whosoever  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved.  And  Paul  writes  to  the  Galatians:  'Ye  are  all  chil- 
dren of  God  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus;  for  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.' 
However,  if  they  are  possessed  of  the  true  faith,  they  will  also 
acknowledge  the  grace  of  God,  for  which  they  thank  Him 
heartily.  Whoever  truly  believes,  loves  his  neighbor;  indeed, 
he  loves  all  men,  he  prays  for  all,  being  moved  to  do  so  by  love 
and  compassion  toward  all.  Such  a  one  will  also  experience 
many  temptations  and  tribulations  by  the  devil,  the  world, 
and  his  own  flesh  against  which  he  will  have  to  fight  and  strive 
daily..  This  will  cause  him  trouble  and  teach  him  to  pray  of 
his  own  accord.  Such  people  we  advise  to  pray  heartily,  and 
give  them  instruction  therein.  And  this  we  do  for  the  reason 
that  God  in  His  Word  promises  to  hear  them,  and  that  they 
may  be  strengthened  in  faith,  to  continue  faithfully  to  the  end, 


212  THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

but  not  in  order  that  thereby  they  may  be  born  anew.."  (36  f.) 
The  question,  "How  does  the  Spirit  give  testimony?"  was 
answered  by  David  Henkel  as  follows:  "When  an  evil-doer 
condemned  to  death  receives  a  document  with  the  name  and 
seal  of  the  Governor  affixed,  that  his  crime  is  pardoned,  and 
that  he  shall  be  set  free,  then  he  is  in  possession  of  something 
upon  which  he  may  firmly  rely.  By  it  he  cannot  be  deceived, 
as  would  be  the  case  when  such  a  thing  merely  appeared  to 
him  in  his  thoughts,  or  he  had  dreamt  that  he  was  set  free. 
In  like  manner  he  cannot  be  deceived  who  firmly  believes  the 
assurances  given  him  in  the  Word  of  God  that  God,  for  the 
sake  of  Christ,  has  forgiven  all  his  sins.  The  Spirit  is  then 
giving  him,  through  the  Word,  firm  assurance  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  his  sins.  And  if  he  remains  in  faith,  he  always  has 
this  firm  assurance  in  the  Gospel  which  proclaims  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  All  men  could  have  such  an  assurance  if  by  faith 
they  were  obedient  to  the  Gospel.  The  Romans  had  it,  but 
only  for  the  reason  that,  in  accordance  with  the  ordinance  of 
Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized  and  believed  in  Him.  That 
this  text  [Rom.  8,  16]  does  not,  though  always  misinterpreted 
in  this  way,  prove  that  one  must  have  been  favored  with 
a  certain  heavenly  vision  in  order  to  know  that  one's  sins  are 
forgiven,  every  intelligent  man  will  see  without  further  ex- 
planation. The  Prince  of  Darkness  always  endeavors  to  lead 
men  away  from  the  ordinances  and  promises  of  God,  and  causes 
them  to  rely  on  all  manner  of  works  and  merits  of  their  own, 
in  order,  finally,  to  make  the  poor  creatures  believe  as  all 
Deists  do,  viz.,  that  Christianity  is  nothing  but  a  nursery-tale. 
There  is  reason  also  to  believe  that  wily  Satan  presents  some 
illusion  to  such  as,  in  an  overwrought  frame  of  mind,  are  in 
great  expectations  of  seeing  a  vision,  and  that  they  regard  it 
as  sent  from  heaven,  and  build  on  it  their  assurance  of  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins."  (43.)  In  the  letter,  appended  to  the 
Report  of  1821,  from  which  we  quoted  above,  Jacob  Larros 
says:  "If  I  can  again,  after  falling  from  baptismal  grace, 
appropriate  to  myself  from  Holy  Scripture  the  blessed  marks 
of  a  state  of  grace  and  of  regeneration,  then  it  truly  is  no 
new  grace,  produced  by  the  storming  of  men;  but  it  most 
assuredly  is  the  same  grace  promised  in  Baptism  which  has 
been  found  once  more.     The  grace  secured  by  storm   [die  ge- 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  213 

stuermte  Gnade]  may  also  have  its  marks,  drawn  from  the  air 
or  out  of  the  head,  not  from  the  Bible,  but  from  the  majority 
of  false  voices."  (B.  1821,  35.)  Concerning  the  "new  measures" 
(die  "neuen  Massregeln" )  the  Report  of  1841  records  the  fol- 
lowing: "Now  the  'new  measures'  were  taken  under  advise- 
ment [by  Synod],  and  after  a  carefully  considered  discussion 
it  was  unanimously  Resolved,  That  we  disapprove  most  strongly 
of  the  'new  measures'  which  have  been  introduced  into  the 
Lutheran  Church  by  modern  enthusiasts,  because  we  believe 
that  they  are  in  conflict  with  the  Word  of  God,  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  Symbolical  Books 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  with  the  usages  of  the  Church 
in  her  best  and  purest  era,  and  are  calculated  to  arouse 
discord  and  contention  between  the  members  of  the  Church." 
(B.  1841,  10.)  However,  though  strenuously  opposed  to  Metho- 
distic  enthusiasm,  Tennessee,  at  the  same  time,  was  very  con- 
siderate of  Christians  who  were  pietistically  inclined,  and  care- 
fully avoided  judging  their  hearts.  In  the  Report  of  1820  we 
read:  "It  is  indeed  true  that  some  men  of  honest  mind  do  err 
in  this  matter;  they  do  not  perceive  the  difference  and  seek 
in  their  own  exercise  and  experience  what  in  reality  they  have 
already  received  in  Baptism.  However,  if  they  are  but  faith- 
ful, they  will  advance  in  holiness  by  the  thing  wherein  they 
seek  regeneration,  and  thus  it  cannot  harm  their  salvation. 
The  harm,  however,  is  this,  that  the  Prince  of  Darkness  mis- 
leads many  who  are  in  such  error  to  believe  that,  since  they 
seek  to  be  regenerated  by  their  own  works  and  doings,  Baptism 
is  unnecessary;  and,  remaining  unbaptized  themselves,  they 
will  not  permit  their  children  to  be  baptized."   (43.) 

ANTI-UNIOariSTIC  ATTITUDE. 

114.  Refusing1  Fellowship  to  Non-Lutherans.  —  The 
purpose  of  the  General  Synod  was  an  external  union  of  all 
bodies  bearing  the  Lutheran  name,  irrespective  of  their  dif- 
ferences as  to  doctrine  and  practise,  and  to  cultivate  intimate 
fraternal  relations  with  other  Evangelical  denominations.  The 
Tennessee  Synod,  on  the  contrary,  was  not  only  opposed  to  any 
kind  of  union  with  non-Lutheran  churches,  but  also  sought 
to  bring  about  a  separation  of  the  true  Lutherans  from  the 


214  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

spurious  Lutherans,  and  to  unite  the  former  in  defense  of  true 
Lutheranism  against  Reformed  and  other  corruptions  then  pre- 
vailing in  the  Lutheran  synods.  Unity  in  the  spirit,  unity  in 
doctrine,  unity  in  faith  and  confession,  was  viewed  by  Tennessee 
as  the  sine  qua  non,  the  absolutely  necessary  condition,  of  all 
church-fellowship,  church  union,  and  cooperation.  This  appears 
from  their  attitude  toward  the  North  Carolina  and  other 
synods,  as  described  above.  While  Stork,  Shober,  and  others 
advocated  a  union  not  only  with  the  General  Synod,  but  with 
all  religious  bodies  in  America,  the  Henkels  and  their  ad- 
herents declared  at  the  "Quarreling  Synod,"  1820:  "The  gen- 
eral union  of  the  numerous  religious  parties,  though  a  very 
desirable  matter,  is  not  to  be  hoped  for,  as  we  can  clearly  see 
that  such  a  thing  is  impossible  at  this  time.  How  should  it 
be  possible?  Some  teach:  Christ  died  on  the  cross  for  all 
men  to  redeem  all.  Others  teach:  This  is  not  true;  He  died 
only  for  the  small  number  of  those  who,  according  to  the  holy 
will  and  the  wise  counsel  of  God,  are  elected  from  eternity  and 
are  compelled  to  be  saved;  the  rest  of  mankind,  also  according 
to  His  wise  counsel,  God,  from  eternity,  has  ordained  and 
elected  unto  damnation,  and  they  must  be  lost.  Again,  some 
teach:  Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  because  Christ  and 
His  apostles  teach  thus.  Others  hold:  This  is  not  true;  Bap- 
tism is  a  mere  outward  sign  indicating  obedience  toward  the 
command  of  the  Lord  and  nothing  more;  Baptism  is  not  at 
all  necessary  unto  regeneration,  as  regeneration  is  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  without  any  means  whatever.  Some  say:  It 
is  right  to  baptize  children.  Others  maintain:  Infant  Bap- 
tism is  an  institution  of  the  Pope.  Others:  It  is  of  the 
devil.  Some  reject  every  kind  of  baptism.  Such  and  similar 
are  the  people  who  constitute  the  present  so-called  Christen- 
dom: opinions,  opposing  one  another,  and  that  always  will  be 
opposed  to  each  other!  All  these  are  supposed  to  be  united 
in  one  church,  and  to  become  one  congregation  and  one  flock, 
all  under  the  care  of  one  shepherd.  That  would  be  like  stabling 
together  sheep,  goats,  lambs,  cows,  oxen,  horses,  bears,  wolves, 
wildcats,  foxes,  and  swine,  and  putting  them  under  the  care 
of  one  shepherd,  saying,  'Here  you  have  a  united  flock  which 
now  you  may  feed  and  pasture  in  peace ;  you  have  many  heads 
under  one  hat,  take  your  place  among  them.'    That  some  were 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  215 

much  displeased  by  this  objection  to  the  general  union  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at,  for  some  of  that  stripe  were  present.  There 
were  also  some  of  almost  all  religious  parties  in  attendance." 
(B.  1820,  26.)  It  is  apparent  from  these  statements  that  a  gen- 
eral union  of  all  denominations,  irrespective  of  their  doctrinal 
differences,  was  certainly  not  relished  by  Tennessee  in  1820. 
Twenty  years  later  Synod  still  occupied  the  same  position.  In 
1841,  after  discussing  an  appeal  which  had  gone  out  to  unite 
all  the  different  religious  parties  in  one  big  body,  Tennessee 
"resolved  that  whereas  the  Church  of  Christ  is  a  gathering  of 
all  true  believers,  and  is  not  now,  nor  ever  has  been,  divided; 
and  whereas  it  is  impossible  that  all  the  different,  contradictory 
teachings  should  agree  with  the  Word  of  God;  and  whereas  it 
is  also  impossible  to  bring  about  a  Christian  union  of  all  the 
different  denominations  without  the  unity  of  opinions;  and 
whereas  the  teachers  do  greatly  differ  in  their  views  on  religion 
and  the  form  of  church-government :  a  union  of  all  the  various 
denominations  in  one  large  body  is  both  impossible  and  im- 
proper; and  even  if  brought  about,  instead  of  furthering  the 
kingdom  of  our  Redeemer,  it  would  harm  the  welfare  thereof 
and  jeopardize  the  religious  liberty  of  our  happy  land." 
(B.  1841,  11.) 

115.  Refusing  Fellowship  to  False  Lutherans. — That 
the  attitude  of  Tennessee  also  over  against  those  whom  they 
regarded  as  false  Lutherans  was  of  a  most  determined  and 
consistent  nature,  and  free  from  all  unionism,  has  been  shown 
above.  Nor  did  they  regard  this  a  mere  matter  of  policy,  but 
of  conscience.  With  respect  to  their  public  testimony  against 
the  errorists  of  the  North  Carolina  Synod  the  men  of  Tennessee 
declared:  "Should  any  one  raise  the  accusation  that  it  was 
unbecoming  for  us  as  teachers  of  the  Gospel  to  publish  and 
reveal  this  matter  here  [in  the  Report  of  1820],  to  him  we  give 
the  answer :  The  prophets  in  the  Old  Testament  did  also  con- 
tend against  every  erroneous  doctrine,  and  the  Apostles  Paul, 
Peter,  and  John  marked  all  such  as  taught  false  doctrine,  and 
warned  the  Christians  against  them.  If,  however,  it  can  be 
proven  from  Holy  Writ  that  we  proclaim  erroneous  or  false 
doctrine,  we  will  suffer  ourselves  to  be  corrected.  We  cannot, 
however,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  peace,  let  everything  pass 


216  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

and  approve  of  everything  they  preach,  for  we  know  that  it 
does  not  agree  with  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  certainly  our 
desire  to  be  able  to  live  and  continue  to  work  in  peace  and 
union  with  all  members  of  the  entire  Synod.  We  cannot,  how- 
ever, unite  with  them  at  present  [because  they  were  not  agreed 
doctrinally].  We  consider  it  our  supreme  duty  and  obligation 
to  defend  the  doctrines  of  our  Church  against  all  false  teach- 
ings; and  though  they  proceed  from  such  as  call  themselves 
Lutheran  preachers,  we  cannot  on  that  account  spare  them  nor 
keep  silence  in  this  matter,  even  if  we  could  thereby  win  their 
favor  and  the  favor  of  all  great  men  on  earth."  (1820,  31.) 
With  special  reference  to  Shober,  Stork,  and  their  compeers 
Tennessee  declared:  "Should  we  help  them  to  cover  such  bold 
things  as  you  have  here  read  [errors  concerning  Baptism, 
Lord's  Supper,  etc.],  because  they  belong  to  our  organization 
and  bear  the  name  Lutheran?  Can  we  do  this  with  a  good 
conscience?"  (1820,  31.)  True,  at  the  "Quarreling  Synod," 
1820,  the  Henkels  were  charged  with  having  served  all  re- 
ligious parties  with  the  Word  and  Sacrament.  They  admitted 
that  this  was  true,  and  expressed  their  confidence  that  it  had 
not  been  without  blessing,  at  least,  for  some.  But  they  added : 
"This,  however,  must  also  be  taken  into  consideration,  that 
they  [the  Henkels]  had  always  taught  such  people  what  our 
Church  teaches,  and  that  they  had  never  preached  anything 
else  in  deference  to  them,  or  to  please  them.  Now,  if  any  one 
was  agreed  with  our  doctrine,  and  hence  felt  free  to  hear  our 
doctrine  and  to  commune  with  us,  we  could  not  hinder  him. 
We  do  not  regard  the  name  of  such  people,  but  what  they  be- 
lieve." (1820,  25.)  However,  one  will  admit  that  the  practise 
of  Tennessee  at  this  early  date  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
fully  consistent.  The  Report  of  1820,  for  example,  records: 
"With  the  Evangelical  Reformed  David  Henkel  had  no  quarrel 
that  we  know  of,  for  many  of  them,  who  are  members  in  good 
standing,  receive  Communion  from  him."  ( 18. )  The  following 
remark  of  the  same  Report  uncovers  a  similar  inconsistency: 
"Should  any  one  who  has  been  baptized  according  to  Christ's 
command,  and  who  has  been  confirmed  in  another  church,  de- 
sire to  commune  with  us  and  to  be  in  fellowship  with  our 
Church,  it  shall  be  permitted  him,  and  he  may  be  looked  upon 
as  a  member  of  the  Church  without  being  baptized  or  confirmed 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  217 

for  the  second  time."  (5;  1831,  8.)  These  shortcomings,  how- 
ever, do  not  dispute  the  fact  that  the  Tennessee  Synod,  in 
a  manner  most  energetic  and  persistent,  endeavored  to  steer 
clear  of,  and  opposed  every  kind  of,  unionism  with  the  sects, 
as  well  as  with  unfaithful  Lutherans.  In  1886,  however, 
Tennessee,  untrue  to  its  noble  traditions,  participated  in  the 
unionistic  organization  of  the  United  Synod  in  the  South,  and 
in  1918  she  joined  the  Lutheran  Merger,  which  brought  her 
into  complete  fellowship  with  all  the  unionistic  synods  that 
constituted  the  General  Synod,  opposition  to  which  having  been 
the  primary  cause  of  her  separate  organization  in  1820. 

TENNESSEE  AND  MISSOURI. 

116.  Mutual  Attraction.  —  The  doctrinal,  confessional, 
and  practical  position  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  being  such  as 
described,  it  was  but  natural  that,  as  soon  as  Missouri  and 
Tennessee  became  acquainted  with  each  other,  both  should 
sense  their  kindred  spirits,  and  feel  attracted  mutually.  And 
such  was  the  case  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Tennessee  at  this 
time  had  practically  sloughed  off  the  German  language,  while 
Missouri  was  thoroughly  German,  and  continued  so  for  many 
decades.  Immediately  after  the  first  contact  with  Tennessee, 
Missouri  displayed  a  lively  interest  in  these  early  protagonists 
of  genuine  confessional  Lutheranism.  They  rejoiced  in  having 
found  in  the  Tennessee  confessors  flesh  of  their  flesh  and  bone 
of  their  bone.  With  great  satisfaction  they  reported  on  the 
antiunionistic  position  which  Tennessee  held  over  against  the 
old,  apostate  synods.  In  Loehe's  Kirchliche  Mitteilungen  of 
1847  we  find  the  following:  "Several  Virginians  came  to 
St.  Louis  to  the  Lutheran  Pastor  Buenger,  and  asked  him 
whether  he  still  adhered  to  the  old  Lutheran  faith,  which  he 
affirmed  to  their  joy.  Thereupon  they  told  of  Henkel.  .  .  . 
They  had  protested  against  an  edition  of  Luther's  Small  Cate- 
chism in  which,  with  reference  to  Baptism,  the  words  'who 
believe  it'  (die  es  glauben)  had  been  made  to  read  'who  be- 
lieve' (die  da  glauben)."  (94.)  The  Luther aner  of  Febru- 
ary 22,  1848,  published  the  Tennessee  resolution,  stating  that 
they  could  unite  with  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina  "only  on 
the   ground   of   pure   and   unadulterated   Evangelical   Luther- 


218  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

anism,"  and  added  the  comment:  "We  confess  that  a  closer 
acquaintance  has  filled  us  with  the  best  prepossessions  for  this 
Synod.  As  far  as  we  can  see  from  the  Report,  they  are 
earnestly  striving  to  preserve  the  treasure  of  pure  Lutheran 
teaching."  At  the  convention  of  the  Missouri  Synod  at  Fort 
Wayne,  in  1849,  Dr.  Sihler  was  elected  a  delegate  to  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod.  He  wrote  to  Loehe  that  "according  to  its  Re- 
ports and  confessions,  this  Synod  maintains  an  upright 
churchly  position."  "It  would  be  a  great  joy,"  Sihler  adds, 
"if  we  could  enter  into  definite  church-fellowship  with  them, 
especially,  as  we,  above  all  others,  have  been  stigmatized  as 
the  'exclusive  Lutherans.'  "  (Kirchl.  Mitt.  1849,  92.)  Reviewing 
the  Tennessee  Report  of  1848,  Walther  remarked  in  the  Luthe- 
rcmer  of  January  23,  1849 :  "Like  its  predecessor,  this  Report 
proves  that  this  Synod  belongs  to  the  small  number  of  those 
who  are  determined  not  only  to  be  called  Lutherans,  but  also 
to  be  and  to  remain  Lutherans."  After  reporting  their  chief 
resolutions,  including  the  one  expressing  their  delight  over  the 
organization  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  recommending  the 
Lutheraner  to  their  German-speaking  members,  Walther  con- 
tinues as  follows :  "We  close  this  extract  with  the  sincere  wish 
that  the  Lord  would  continue  to  bless  this  Synod,  which  for 
almost  thirty  years,  in  spite  of  much  shame  and  persecution, 
has  faithfully  testified  and  fought  against  the  apostasy  of  the 
so-called  American  Lutheran  Church,  especially  against  the 
General  Synod,  and  which,  as  far  as  we  know,  of  all  the  older 
Lutheran  synods,  alone  has  preserved  in  this  last  evil  time 
the  treasures  of  our  Lutheran  Church;  and  we  also  wish 
that  the  Lord  would  make  this  Synod  a  salt  of  the  earth  to 
stay  the  growing  spiritual  corruption  in  other  synods."  (5,  84.) 
At  the  meeting  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  1853,  a  letter  dated 
October  6,  1853,  and  signed  by  Theo.  Brohm  and  A.  Hoyer, 
delegates  appointed  by  Missouri,  but  unable  to  attend  per- 
sonally, was  read,  stating,  in  part:  "We  are  highly  rejoiced 
in  this  vast  desert  and  wilderness  to  meet  a  whole  Lutheran 
synod  steadfastly  holding  to  the  precious  Confession  of  our 
beloved  Church,  and  zealously  engaged  in  divulging  the  un- 
altered doctrines  and  principles  of  the  Reformation  among  the 
English  portion  of  Lutherans,  by  translating  the  standard 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  at  the  same  time  firmly  resisting  the 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  219 

allurements  of  those  who  say  they  are  Lutherans  and  are  not. 
Our  Synod  extends,  through  our  instrumentality,  the  hand  of 
fraternity  to  you,  not  fearing  to  be  refused,  and  ardently  de- 
sires, however  separated  from  you  by  a  different  language  and 
local  interests,  to  cooperate  with  you,  hand  in  hand,  in  re- 
building the  walls  of  our  dilapidated  Zion.  We  are  authorized 
to  beseech  your  venerable  Synod  to  delegate  as  many  of  your 
members  as  you  may  deem  proper  to  our  synodical  meeting  to 
be  held  next  year  at  St.  Louis,  promising  hereby  a  friendly  and 
hospitable  reception.  Should  your  Synod  next  year  assemble 
at  a  place  more  easily  accessible,  and  more  convenient  to  us, 
we,  or  they  whom  our  Synod  may  appoint,  shall  not  fail  to 
attend."  (1853,  18.)  With  special  reference  to  a  letter  of 
Rev.  A.  Biewend,  also  a  delegate  appointed  by  the  Missouri 
Synod,  but  prevented  from  attending,  in  which  he  expressed 
"the  hope  and  desire  that  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  may 
be  formed  between  both  synods,"  Tennessee  adopted  the  resolu- 
tion, "That  we  duly  appreciate  the  kind  regard  of  the  Missouri 
Synod,  and  that  we  also  desire  a  more  intimate  acquaintance 
with  them,  and  that  we  appoint  Rev.  J.  R.  Moser  a  delegate  to 
the  next  session  of  that  Synod."  (1853,  13.)  In  the  Tennessee 
minutes  of  1854  we  read:  "The  Rev.  Theodore  Brohm,  of  the 
Synod  of  Missouri,  Ohio,  and  Other  States,  was  introduced  to 
Synod,  and  received  as  a  corresponding  member  of  this 
body."  (5.)  "During  recess,  Rev.  Th.  Brohm  preached  from 
Rev.  14,  6.  7."  (11.)  "The  Rev.  Theodore  Brohm,  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod,  being  present,  the  following  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions were  unanimously  adopted :  Whereas  the  Rev.  Theodore 
Brohm,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  delegate  of  the  Synod  of 
Missouri,  Ohio,  and  Other  States,  has  appeared  amongst  us, 
and  we  are  assured  from  personal  interviews  with  him,  as  well 
as  from  other  sources  of  information,  that  the  Synod  which  he 
represents  adhere  strictly  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Ev.  Lutheran 
Church,  as  exhibited  in  her  confessional  standards,  and  are 
zealously  and  actively  engaged  in  promoting  the  interests  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  be  it  therefore  1.  Resolved,  That  we 
are  highly  gratified  to  see  Brother  Brohm  in  our  midst.  2.  Re- 
solved, That  we  fully  and  cheerfully  reciprocate  the  kind  and 
fraternal  feelings  expressed  and  manifested  towards  us  by  the 
Missouri  Synod.     3.  Resolved,  That  we  endeavor  to  cultivate 


220  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

a  more  intimate  acquaintance  and  a  closer  union  with  the 
Missouri  Synod.  4.  Resolved,  That,  for  this  purpose,  Rev.  Soc- 
rates Henkel  be  appointed  a  delegate  from  this  body  to  the 
Eastern  division  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  to  be  holden  in  Balti- 
more; and  that  Rev.  J.  R.  Moser  be  appointed  our  delegate 
to  the  Western  division  of  said  Synod,  at  its  next  session." 
(12;  Lutheraner  11,77.)  Moser  attended  and  reported  to  his 
Synod  in  the  following  year.  (1856,  23.)  Brohm,  relating  in 
the  Lutheraner  his  visit  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  said,  in  part: 
"Let  the  assurance  here  suffice  that,  among  the  pastors  in 
attendance,  I  have  found  a  faithful  adherence  to  our  common 
Mother  Church,  and  that  I  have  not  met  with  any  essential 
doctrinal  differences.  It  gave  me  great  pleasure  to  observe 
how  these  men,  in  spite  of  the  great  dearth  of  English- Lutheran 
literature,  have  preserved  such  a  living  consciousness  of  Lu- 
theran orthodoxy  and  such  a  firm  Lutheran  character." 
(11,  78.) 

117.  Tributes  from  Dr.  Walther.  —  When,  in  1852,  the 
book,  Luther  on  the  Sacraments,  published  by  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  came  to  Walther's  attention,  he  wrote:  "We  praise 
God  that  He  has  caused  this  glorious  work  to  succeed.  The 
importance  of  the  appearance  of  this  work  in  this  country, 
where  the  great  majority  of  the  English-speaking  Lutherans 
have  fallen  into  Reformed  errors  regarding  the  articles  of  the 
holy  Sacraments,  and  are  ignorant  of,  yea,  do  not  even  suspect, 
the  good  foundation  on  which  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
Sacraments  is  built,  cannot  be  estimated  at  its  true  value. 
After  the  Book  of  Concord  had  been  presented  to  the  English- 
speaking  Lutherans  in  their  own  language,  no  better  selection 
could  have  been  made  for  them  than  the  above-mentioned  three 
writings*  [Sermon  on  Holy  Baptism,  of  1535;  Letter  on  Ana- 
baptism,  of  1528;  Confession  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  1528] 
of  Luther,  the  chosen  vessel  of  God  for  the  reformation  of  the 
Church.  These  two  books,  now  rendered  into  English,  are 
gracious  visitations  indeed  for  the  English  Lutheran  Church 
of  this  country.  May  it  know  the  time  of  its  visitation!  .  .  . 
And  the  right  reverend  Tennessee  Synod,  which  has  issued 
both  works  (the  Book  of  Concord  and  Luther  on  the  Sacra- 
ments) in  the  English  language,  as  well  as  the  dear  men  who, 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  221 

moved  by  love  for  the  truth  and  the  Church  of  their  fathers, 
have  regarded  neither  the  unspeakable  labor  nor  the  great  ex- 
pense connected  with  this  undertaking  —  may  God  reward  them 
by  showering  His  blessings  upon  them  in  abundant  measure I" 
(9,  115.)  When  the  second  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord 
appeared,  Walther  wrote:  "We  thank  God  for  the  unspeakable 
blessing  which  He  has  conferred  upon  the  Church  of  our  adopted 
fatherland  [through  the  publication  of  this  book],  and  in  our 
hearts  we  bless  the  faithful  publishers.  It  is  surprising  as 
well  as  faith-strengthening  to  learn  that  already  in  the  first 
year  a  second  edition  has  become  necessary.  May  many  hands 
reach  out  for  it,  and  may  a  third  edition  soon  become  neces- 
sary!" (L.  11,  63.)  Walther's  joy  and  enthusiasm  over  these 
works  published  by  Tennessee  in  the  English  language  will  be 
understood  when  we  remember  that  it  was  the  time  when  the 
Definite  Platform  was  preparing,  and  Benjamin  Kurtz  and 
others,  in  order  to  discredit  the  "Old  Lutherans,"  who  still  ad- 
hered to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  were 
boldly  repeating  the  Heidelberg  Lie  (die  Heidelberger  Land- 
luege),  according  to  which  Luther,  shortly  before  his  death, 
disavowed  his  doctrine  regarding  the  Lord's  Supper.  (L.  12,  31.) 

PECULIARITIES  OF  TENNESSEE  SYNOD. 

118.  Opposed  to  Incorporation.  —  The  peculiarities  of 
the  Tennessee  Synod,  several  of  which  have  already  been  alluded 
to,  may  be  accounted  for  partly  by  the  lack,  on  their  part,  of 
correct  logical  distinctions  and  clear  conceptions,  partly  by 
their  fear  of  synodical  tyranny  over  the  individual  ministers 
and  congregations.  Conspicuous  among  these  abnormalities  is 
the  rejection  of  civil  incorporation  as  a  reprehensible  com- 
mingling of  State  and  Church.  Article  5  of  the  Constitution 
declares:  "This  Synod  shall  never  be  incorporated  by  civil 
government,  nor  have  any  incorporated  Theological  Seminary 
under  their  care."  (B.  1828,  20;  1827,  22;  1853,  26.)  The 
"Remarks"  appended  explain:  "This  article  prohibits  this 
body  ever  from  being  incorporated  by  civil  government.  That 
the  government  of  the  Church  ought  not  to  be  blended  (ver- 
einbart)  with  the  State,  is  a  tenet  of  the  Augustan  Confession, 
amply  supported  by  the  Scriptures.  See  28th  Article.    Our  Lord 


222  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

declared  that  His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  John  18,  36. 
That  the  Church  ought  not  to  be  blended  with  the  State  is  also 
according  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  whose  spirit 
and  design  is  to  secure  to  every  person  full  liberty  with  respect 
to  spiritual  matters.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  admits  of  no 
bondage,  for  'it  is  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  Rom.  14, 17;  'and  where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there 
is  liberty,'  2  Cor.  3,  17.  But  when  the  Church  is  identified  with 
the  State,  it  is  also  fettered  by  human  traditions,  aspiring 
priests  obtain  the  power  to  tyrannize  men's  consciences.  How- 
ever, an  ecclesiastical  body  may  be  incorporated  by  civil 
authority,  and  yet  not  be  the  established  Church  of  the  nation ; 
and  so  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  our  civil  constitutions  there 
is  nothing  contained  in  them  to  prohibit  a  legislative  body 
from  incorporating  any  society.  But  when  a  Church  is  in- 
corporated, it  approximates  to  a  State  coalition.  The  Church, 
by  an  act  of  incorporation,  if  I  am  not  greatly  misinformed, 
would  have  power  to  enact  laws  and  regulations  binding  upon 
all  their  members,  and  could  recover  by  a  civil  suit  at  law  any 
property,  or  its  value,  bequeathed  to  them.  Thus  empowered, 
could  they  not  also  borrow  money  upon  the  credit  of  their 
whole  community  for  the  establishment  of  any  institution? 
An  incorporated  Church  may  not  only  preserve  their  funds, 
but  they  may  also  lend  out  their  money  on  usury,  and  obtain 
a  vast  increase.  The  aspiring  priests  of  such  a  body,  knowing 
that  the  wealth  of  the  Church  is  their  interest,  they  invent 
many  schemes  to  enlarge  the  so-called  treasury  of  God,  lest  it 
should  ever  get  exhausted.  They  fetter  the  conscience  of  some 
persons,  by  telling  them  that  they  ought  to  promote  the  cause 
of  God,  by  casting  their  donations  into  the  sacred  treasury,  so 
that  they  yield  to  their  request,  whilst  they  denounce  those  who 
refuse  to  comply  with  their  importunities  as  foes  to  Christ 
and  His  holy  Gospel.  They  contrive  to  obtain  testamentary 
devices  to  the  injury  (in  many  cases)  of  widows  and  orphans; 
they  condescend  to  flatter  the  female  sex  until  they  have  begged 
all  that  they  are  able  to  bestow.  Thus  by  the  instrumentality 
of  those  clerical  beggars,  and  by  the  cause  of  Christ  being  made 
a  pander,  the  Church  becomes  wealthy;  and  wealth  creates 
power,  and  power,  tyranny  and  oppression.     That  many  of  the 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  223 

clergymen  of  the  day  possess  an  aspiring  spirit  is  evident  from 
the  several  attempts  they  have  made  to  get  some  of  their 
institutions  incorporated  by  civil  authority.  If  a  few  of  the 
most  numerous  denominations  in  the  United  States  were  to 
unite,  join  their  funds,  in  one,  and  could  succeed  in  obtaining 
an  incorporation  act,  they  would  not  only  be  extremely  wealthy 
already;  but  they  might  also  increase  in  wealth  to  such  a  de- 
gree as  would  endanger  our  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  lib- 
erty. But  if  it  be  asked  in  what  manner  this  could  be  effected, 
I  answer:  In  various  ways,  as,  for  instance,  such  a  gigantic 
body  might  by  means  of  their  wealth  establish  so  great 
a  number  of  printing-offices  as  would  enable  them  to  print 
and  sell  Bibles  at  so  reduced  a  price  that  they  would  engross 
the  sales  of  all  the  Bibles  wanted  in  America,  which  would  be 
an  annual  revenue  of  millions.  They  would  be  enabled  to 
educate  thousands  for  the  ministry  who  otherwise  had  no 
inclination  to  embark  in  that  office;  and  they,  tutored  in  the 
principles  of  aristocracy,  and  the  churches  filled  with  them, 
those  principles  might  be  disseminated  among  millions;  they 
could  also  supply  the  most  of  the  common  schools  with  their 
teachers,  and  thus  the  rising  generation  would  imbibe  the  same 
pernicious  principles,  until  at  length  persons  of  this  description 
would  occupy  all  the  civil  offices  in  our  country,  which  would 
ultimately  effect  the  destruction  of  civil  liberty.  In  a  similar 
manner  the  Roman  Church  became  elevated  above  the  State. 
By  testamentary  devises  from  the  people,  as  well  as  from  noble- 
men and  kings,  by  the  sales  of  indulgences  and  other  inventions, 
the  Church  became  exceedingly  wealthy;  cloisters  were  erected, 
and  they  occupied  by  friars  and  nuns  supported  at  the  expense 
of  the  people,  it  was  their  interest  to  support  the  power  and 
dignity  of  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  same  causes  will  produce 
the  same  effects.  If  the  Church  should  ever  acquire  great 
wealth,  aspiring  priests  will  grasp  great  power.  Whereas  this 
body  know  these  things,  and  wish  to  preserve  both  spiritual 
and  civil  liberty,  and  to  prevent  their  successors  from  attempt- 
ing to  blend  the  Church  with  the  State,  they  have  by  this 
article  prohibited  an  incorporation  of  this  body,  and  of  any 
theological  seminary  under  their  care,  and  from  accumulating 
funds  for  the  support  of  such  a  seminary  and  of  missionaries." 
(1853,27.) 


224  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

119.  Establishment  of  Seminaries  Discouraged. — 
Tennessee  did  not  only  oppose  the  incorporation  of  seminaries, 
but,  strangely  enough,  never  did  encourage  the  establishment  of 
any  kind  of  theological  school  whatever.  According  to  their 
views,  theological  and  literary  schools,  supported  by  the  Church, 
were  superfluous,  since  the  languages  might  be  studied  in  the 
secular  academies  of  the  country,  and  a  course  of  theology  could 
be  pursued  with  some  able  divine.  The  Fifth  Article  of  the 
Tennessee  Constitution  provides:  "Neither  shall  they  have  any 
particular  treasury  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  .  .  .  theo- 
logical seminaries."  (1853,  26.)  The  "Remarks"  appended  to 
this  article  explain:  "Although  this  body  shall  have  no  in- 
corporated theological  seminary  under  their  care,  nor  any  par- 
ticular treasury  for  its  support,  nevertheless  they  consider  it 
highly  beneficial  to  the  Church  for  every  minister  to  under- 
stand the  original  tongues  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  be  well 
skilled  in  theology.  But  such  qualifications  may  be  acquired 
without  an  incorporated  theological  seminary.  There  are 
already  a  goodly  number  of  academies  dispersed  throughout 
our  country  which  are  not  under  the  care  of  any  particular 
denomination,  in  which  the  student  may  acquire  a  classical 
education.  He,  in  like  manner,  may  have  the  opportunity  of 
studying  theology  with  some  able  divine."  (1853,  26.)  How- 
ever, though  Tennessee  in  no  way  encouraged  the  establish- 
ment of  a  theological  seminary,  the  conclusion  must  not  be 
drawn  that  they  underestimated  or  despised  a  well-educated 
ministry.  The  minutes  of  1821  record:  "A  motion  was  made 
by  Rev.  David  Henkel  that  no  person  shall  be  ordained  a  pastor 
of  our  Church  unless  he  understands  as  much  of  the  Greek 
language  as  will  enable  him  to  translate  the  New  Testament. 
But  no  resolution  respecting  it  was  passed.  It  remains  post- 
poned until  the  next  Synod,  when  it  shall  be  taken  into  con- 
templation." (1821,8.)  In  1827  Tennessee  made  the  following 
recommendations  and  declarations  with  respect  to  the  German, 
Greek,  and  Hebrew  languages :  "Whereas  the  Symbolical  Books 
of  our  Church,  particularly  Luther's  works,  are  extant  in  the 
German  language,  and  as  sundry  extracts  have  been  made  out 
of  them,  and  most  erroneously  translated  into  the  English ;  and 
as  it  is  probable  that  such  frauds  may  be  practised  in  future, 
this  body  recommend  the  study  of  the  German  language  to  all 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  22. J 

the  members  of  the  Church.  This  would  enable  them  to  detect 
the  glaring  frauds  practised  by  men  under  the  garb  of  Lu- 
therans. It  was  resolved  that  a  more  strict  attention  shall  be 
paid  to  the  literary  qualifications  of  those  who  enter  the 
ministry  than  has  been  done  heretofore.  A  deacon  should  at 
least  understand  the  language  in  which  he  officiates  with  some 
degree  of  accuracy,  and  be  able  to  make  the  logical  compo- 
sitions in  writing.  A  pastor  ought,  in  addition  to  these  quali- 
fications, be  acquainted  with  the  Greek,  the  original  tongue  of 
the  New  Testament.  Also  an  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew, 
the  original  tongue  of  the  Old  Testament,  would  the  more 
amply  qualify  him  for  the  sacred  ministry.  The  Synod,  how- 
ever, do  not  think  that  there  are  not  also  useful  men  in  the 
ministry  who  do  not  possess  all  those  qualifications.  For  there 
are  men  whose  manifold  experience  supplies  some  literary  de- 
fects. But  when  a  whole  body  of  ministers  are  illiterate,  they 
are  not  able  to  defend  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  against  the 
subtile  attacks  of  enemies.  Suppose  false  teachers  were  to 
make  a  spurious  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  how  could  such 
an  illiterate  body  of  ministers  detect  the  forgery?  If  the 
knowledge  of  the  original  tongues  should  ever  become  extinct, 
the  Gospel  might  soon  become  forged  and  corrupted.  It  is  to 
be  lamented  that  there  are  too  many  young  men  who  wish  to 
be  ministers ;  notwithstanding,  they  are  too  indolent  to  acquire 
a  knowledge  of  the  original  tongues.  They  are  infatuated  to 
think  that  they  are  immediately  inspired  from  heaven,  and 
that,  therefore,  they  need  no  literary  qualifications.  In  order 
to  check  this  growing  evil,  and  to  oppose  this  fanaticism,  it  was 
resolved  that  every  candidate  for  the  ministry  shall  stand 
a  literary  as  well  as  a  theological  examination,  and  be  pro- 
moted agreeably  to  his  industry.  This  resolution  principally 
respects  young  men."   (11.) 

120.  General  Mission  Treasury  Regarded  Dangerous. 
—  The  Report  of  1824  records :  "Synod  has  not,  and  does  not 
want  to  have,  a  treasury  to  pay  traveling  missionaries."  (8.) 
The  "Remarks"  appended  to  the  Fifth  Article  of  the  constitu- 
tion, rejecting  "any  particular  treasury  for  the  purpose  of  sup- 
porting missionaries  and  theological  seminaries,"  explain  as  fol- 
lows:   "There  are  but  few,  if  any,  young  men  in  our  country 

Bente,  American  Lutheranism,  I.  15 


226  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

who  are  not  able  to  defray  the  expenses  of  their  education 
either  by  means  of  their  property  or  industry.  Yet  if  there  be 
such  whose  indolence  is  the  cause  why  they  are  not  able  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  their  education,  they  should  by  no  means 
embark  in  the  ministry,  as  the  faithful  discharge  of  ministerial 
duties  requires  men  of  great  industry.  It  must  also  be  observed 
that  this  article  does  not  limit  the  charities  of  liberal  Chris- 
tians who  wish  to  encourage  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel; 
for  they  may,  if  they  deem  it  expedient,  assist  any  student  in 
getting  his  education,  or  any  indigent  congregation  in  getting 
ministerial  labors.  Nor  does  it  prohibit  individual  congre- 
gations from  having  funds  under  their  own  care,  for  the 
purpose  of  defraying  their  own  expenses,  and  assisting  any 
of  their  indigent  brethren.  It  would  be  expedient  for  every 
congregation  to  have  a  fund,  yet  by  no  means  to  hold  such 
under  an  act  of  incorporation.  Again,  although  this  article 
prohibits  this  body  from  having  any  particular  treasury  for 
the  purpose  of  supporting  missionaries,  yet  some  of  the  minis- 
ters of  this  body  annually  perform  missionary  labors.  Now 
if  it  be  asked  how  they  are  supported,  it  may  again  be  asked, 
How  were  the  apostles  of  Christ  supported  when  they  went 
into  all  the  world  to  preach  the  Gospel?  Did  Christ  recom- 
mend the  establishment  of  a  general  fund  by  begging  donations, 
and  obtaining  testamentary  devises  from  dying  men  to  re- 
munerate His  apostles  for  missionary  labors?  By  no  means. 
He  said  unto  them  that  they  should  'first  seek  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  His  righteousness,'  and  that  'all  these  things  should 
be  added  unto  them.'  Matt.  6,  33.  See  also  vv.  25—31.  Thus 
they  had  the  promise  of  being  supported  whilst  they  labored 
in  the  Lord's  vineyard.  Every  faithful  minister  may  rely  upon 
these  promises.  If  he  be  industrious  in  preaching  the  Gospel 
and  instructing  the  ignorant,  he  will  turn  many  unto  righteous- 
ness, who  will  consider  it  their  duty  and  privilege  to  manifest 
their  gratitude  in  contributing  towards  his  support.  But  such 
people  as  manifest  an  avaricious  disposition,  so  that  they  will 
suffer  faithful  ministers  to  serve  them  without  contributing 
something  towards  their  support,  prove  themselves  unworthy 
of  the  Gospel,  and  minister  to  others,  who  will  receive  them 
with  gratitude."  ( 1853,  26. )     In  their  "Objections"  to  the  con- 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  227 

stitution  of  the  General  Synod,  Tennessee  declared:  "We  can- 
not conceive  the  propriety  of  paying  missionaries  out  of  a  gen- 
eral fund.  How  many  pious  ministers  heretofore  have  preached 
the  Gospel  in  remote  parts,  without  such  a  provision.  Men 
who  are  commissioned  by  Christ  to  preach  the  Gospel,  'take  no 
thought,  saying,  What  shall  we  eat,  or  what  shall  we  drink, 
or  wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed?'  Matt.  6,  31 — 34.  Their 
daily  employment  is  to  teach  and  admonish  the  people  —  for 
their  support  they  depend  on  the  faithful  promise  of  our  Lord 
who  said:  'All  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you.'  Men 
who  are  sent  of  God  shall  profit  the  people;  the  Lord,  there- 
fore, who  feeds  the  winged  songsters,  though  they  toil  not,  and 
arrays  the  lilies  of  the  field,  stirreth  up  the  hearts  of  the  people, 
and  fills  them  with  gratitude,  so  that  they  freely  honor  Him 
with  their  substance  in  supporting  His  ministers.  Thus  the 
promise  of  Christ  shall  evermore  be  verified.  But  hirelings 
and  wolves  do  not  believe  this  promise.  They  are  either  en- 
tangled with  some  temporal  employment  to  secure  their  sup- 
port, or  else  must  know  what  they  are  to  have  from  a  general 
fund  before  they  go  forth  to  labor  in  the  Lord's  vineyard. 
When  men  know  what  they  shall  get  from  a  general  fund, 
before  they  preach,  they  have  no  need  to  exercise  faith  in  the 
promise  of  Christ,  for  their  trust  is  in  the  general  fund!  The 
country  is  already  filled  with  such  hired  circuit-riders,  whose 
trust  for  a  support  is  not  in  the  promise  of  our  Lord;  because 
they  first  bargain  with  their  superiors  or  general  synods  what 
they  are  to  have  per  month  or  year  from  the  general  fund. 
Was  the  mission  of  the  primitive  apostles  conducted  in  this 
manner?  Had  Christ  established  a  general  treasury,  out  of 
which  He  had  hired  His  apostles  by  the  month  or  year?  No. 
Is  it  not  degrading  for  Christians  to  depart  so  far  from  the 
paths  of  Christ  and  His  apostles?  Is  it  not  enough  that  we 
have  His  promise?  Genuine  ministers  have  no  need  of  a  gen- 
eral fund  to  support  them;  their  mission  is  profitable  to  the 
people,  whose  hearts,  being  moved  by  the  Lord,  will  support 
their  teachers  —  but  such  men,  who  are  not  called  of  God  do 
not  profit  the  people;  they  therefore  do  not  expect  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  promise  of  Christ,  hence  they  must  look  to  the 
general  treasury.    What  is  better  calculated  to  induce  hirelings 


228  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

to  enter  into  the  holy  orders  than  their  sure  wages,  by  a  gen- 
eral fund?"  (1821,31.)  The  German  Report  of  1821  concludes 
these  remarks  as  follows:  "Give  an  itinerant  preacher  40  to 
50  dollars  a  month,  as  some  already  receive,  and  it  will  prove 
to  be  a  veritable  bait  to  lead  all  manner  of  evil  men  into  the 
ministry,  whether  they  are  called  of  God  or  not ;  for  the  salary 
calls  them!"  (28.) 

121.  Funds  for  Widows  and  Orphans  of  Pastors  De- 
nounced. —  Regarding  Christian  benevolence  and  charity,  Ten- 
nessee admonished  the  Christians  to  be  liberal,  and  also  to 
establish  a  congregational  treasury  to  meet  their  needs.  Gen- 
eral treasuries,  however,  were  denounced  as  leading  to  synodical 
tyranny  and  worldly-mindedness.  This  was  applied  also  to  the 
establishment  of  general  funds  for  the  support  of  widows  and 
orphans  of  pastors.  In  the  Report  of  1821  we  read:  "Why  are 
ministers'  widows  and  orphans,  and  poor  ministers  only,  to  be 
supported  by  a  general  fund,  and  not  also  the  poor  members 
of  the  church?  Are  the  families  of  ministers  a  nobler  race 
than  other  people,  so  that  extraordinary  provisions  must  be 
made  for  them  in  preference  to  others  ?  Would  it  not  be  better 
if  every  congregation  had  a  fund  of  its  own  to  support  their 
needy  at  home?  Each  congregation  are  best  acquainted  with 
their  own  poor,  and  know  who  deserves  help.  Is  it  necessary 
that  the  congregations  should  send  their  money  several  hundred 
miles  from  home,  into  the  general  fund,  and  that  the  poor 
should  receive  it  from  thence  ?  Pious  ministers  accustom  their 
families  to  honest  labor,  so  that  they  may  know  how  to  support 
themselves  when  they  need  it.  Who  supports  the  people's 
widows  and  orphans?  It  is  too  lamentable  a  fact  that  too 
many  ministers  do  not  accustom  their  children  to  labor,  but 
indulge  them  in  their  pride,  vanity,  indolence,  and  in  the 
imitation  of  rich,  proud,  and  pompous  people  of  the  world. 
Behold  how  many  ministers  with  their  wives,  in  our  time,  sur- 
passing humility  —  how  grand  their  attire,  how  lofty  their 
appearance,  how  great  their  association  with  the  wealthy  of 
this  world !  With  what  contempt  do  they  view  the  poor !  How 
numerous  their  waiters,  and  how  little  do  they  expose  them- 
selves to  preach  the  Gospel,  unto  the  poor !  There  is  no  simi- 
larity between  them  and  Christ,  whose  ministers  they  affect 


THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD.  229 

to  be  —  for  He  was  poor ;  He  appeared  lowly  and  in  the  form 
of  a  servant.  Such  vain,  arrogant,  and  indolent  families  truly 
cannot  support  themselves  in  such  style  after  their  fathers' 
decease;  a  general  treasury  indeed  might  be  considered  neces- 
sary to  support  such  in  their  vanity.  The  farmers  and  me- 
chanics may  labor  hard  to  procure  money  to  fill  this  treasury, 
of  which,  though,  their  widows  and  orphans  in  their  straits 
could  expect  no  assistance.  Have  we  any  nobility  in  America 
whom  the  people  must  bear  upon  their  hands?  What  a  con- 
stant tax  is  hereby  imposed  upon  the  congregations!  How 
frequently  the  ministers  or  church-council  must  admonish  the 
people  to  cast  their  mites  into  the  general  fund,  lest  it  should 
be  exhausted !  There  would  be  no  end  to  begging  and  expostu- 
lating with  the  people  for  money.  Howbeit,  it  is  said  that  no 
person  is  compelled  to  contribute  towards  the  general  fund. 
We  grant  it  in  one  sense,  but  not  in  another;  for  such  as  did 
not  freely  contribute  would  be  viewed  with  a  contemptible  eye, 
and  frequently  reproved  as  avaricious,  hardened  wretches,  so 
that  at  last  they  would  find  themselves  obliged  to  contribute. 
Such  widows  and  orphans  who  by  some  misfortune  are  rendered 
unable  to  support  themselves  generally  find  benefactors,  in 
addition  to  those  means  civil  government  hath  already  pro- 
vided." (33.)  The  "Remarks"  to  the  Third  Article  of  the  con- 
stitution conclude  as  follows:  "Can  it  be  believed  that  the 
majority  of  the  clergy  of  the  day  are  true  shepherds?  and  that 
they  do  not  cherish  the  most  aspiring  views?  Why  are  there 
so  many  attempts  made  to  identify  the  Church  with  the  State  ? 
Why  are  so  many  petitions  sent  to  legislative  bodies  for  in- 
corporation? Why  is  there  such  an  insatiable  thirst  for 
creating  funds  of  immense  sums  for  churches  under  incorpora- 
tion acts,  if  the  clergy  of  the  day  did  not  cherish  the  most 
aspiring  views,  and  did  not  wish  to  acquire  a  spiritual  dominion 
blended  with  civil  power?"  (1853,  24.)  It  was  in  keeping  with 
these  views  on  general  funds  when  Tennessee,  in  1841,  resolved 
not  to  participate  in  the  Lutheran  centenary  jubilee  advocated 
by  the  General  Synod,  also  for  the  reason  that  they  were  op- 
posed to  the  plan  of  collecting  $150,000  as  an  endowment  fund 
for  its  literary  and  other  institutions.   (15.) 


230  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

122.  Doctrinal  Peculiarities.  —  Evidently  at  the  time  of 
its  organization,  the  views  prevailing  in  the  Tennessee  Synod 
concerning  "The  Last  Things"  were  not  as  yet  sufficiently 
clarified.  They  believed  that  by  the  organization  of  the 
General  Synod  the  way  was  prepared  for  "the  great  falling 
away,"  spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  when  "the  Antichrist  prophe- 
sied 2  Thess.  2  would  set  himself  in  the  temple  of  God."  In 
the  "Conclusion"  of  his  "Objections"  to  the  constitution  of  the 
General  Synod,  David  Henkel  said:  "We  do  not  expect  finally 
to  prevent  the  establishment  of  this  General  Synod  by  publish- 
ing our  objections,  because  we  believe,  agreeably  to  the  divine 
predictions,  that  the  great  falling  away  is  approaching,  so  that 
Antichrist  will  set  himself  into  the  temple  of  God.  2  Thess.  2. 
We  also  believe  that  the  establishment  of  General  Synods  are 
preparing  the  way  for  him.  Antichrist  will  not,  nor  cannot, 
get  into  power  without  a  general  union,  which  is  not  effected 
by  a  divine  harmony  of  godly  doctrines,  but  by  common  tem- 
poral interests  and  the  power  of  a  majority.  Notwithstanding, 
we  consider  it  our  duty  to  make  the  people  attentive  to  those 
things,  and  to  instruct  such  as  are  not  wilfully  blind.  But 
should  we  be  deceived  in  our  opinion,  and  clearly  be  convinced 
of  it,  we  shall  not  be  ashamed  to  recant.  In  vain  people  dream 
of  the  Millennium  before  crosses  and  tribulations  shall  have 
visited  the  Christian  world  by  the  rage  of  Antichrist.  His 
kingdom  is  reared  under  a  good  garb;  if  this  were  not  the 
case,  no  person  would  be  deceived.  Men  who  are  notoriously 
immoral  and  vicious  cannot  deceive,  but  they  only  who  appear 
like  innocent  lambs.  May  God  preserve  all  His  people  against 
every  temptation,  for  Jesus'  sake!  Amen."  (1821,35.)  In 
a  letter  of  Jacob  Larros,  appended  to  the  German  Report  of 
1821,  we  read:  "0  that  our  dear  brethren  in  office  would 
recognize  the  prophecies  of  Holy  Writ  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  Antichrist  which  .  .  .  soon  will  undergo  a  great  change  and 
appear  in  its  highest  stage;  for  then  they  would  be  on  their 
guard.  Of  him  it  is  written:  cAnd  it  was  given  him  to  make 
war  with  the  saints,  and  to  overcome  them;  and  power  was 
given  him  over  all  kindreds  and  tongues  and  nations.  And  all 
that  dwell  upon  the  earth  shall  worship  him.'  He  desires 
a  universal  communion    (Universalgemeinschaft)   to  reach  his 


THE  TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  231 

purpose.  This  he  neither  can  nor  denies  to  attain  by  [bring- 
ing them  all  into]  agreement  with  the  Scriptures,  but  by  the 
majority  of  votes.  Oh,  how  it  will  grieve  our  brethren  when 
they,  having  by  their  well-meant  Planentwurf  [constitution  of 
the  General  Synod]  organized  a  universal  communion,  behold 
that,  as  forerunners,  they  have  only  prepared  the  way  for  Anti- 
christ to  reach  his  goal  and  obtain  his  dominion.  From  this, 
Lord  God,  preserve  our  Church  and  our  dear  brethren  in  the 
ministry!  Amen."  (36.)  — Concerning  the  ministry  the  Sixth 
Article  of  the  constitution,  adopted  1828,  declares :  "The  grades 
of  the  ministry  are  two :  pastor  and  deacon,  or,  as  St.  Paul 
calls  them,  bishop  and  deacon.  They  must  possess  the  quali- 
fications which  are  described  by  St.  Paul  1  Tim.  3,  1 — 14; 
Titus  1,  4—9."  (1853,  25.)  Both  of  these  offices,  as  well  as 
ordination,  were  regarded  as  necessary.  Says  the  Report  of 
1820:  "As  concerning  the  states  and  grades  of  the  ministry 
( des  Lehramts ) ,  we  do  not  recognize  more  than  two,  to  wit, 
pastor  and  deacon,  as  necessary  for  the  preservation  and  propa- 
gation of  the  Church.  A  pastor  is  an  evangelical  teacher  who 
discharges  the  office  fully,  in  all  its  parts,  or  who  performs  all 
ministerial  acts.  He  must  be  ordained  and  consecrated  to  this 
office  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands  by  one  or  more 
pastors,  when  he  also  solemnly  promises  faithfully  to  discharge 
such  office  according  to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  doctrine  of 
our  Church.  A  deacon  is  indeed  also  a  minister  of  the  Word 
of  God,  but  he  does  not  discharge  this  office  fully,  like  a  pastor, 
but  conducts  catechetical  instruction,  reads  sermons,  conducts 
funerals,  exhorts  and,  in  the  absence  of  a  pastor,  also  baptizes 
children,  where  such  is  desired.  He  must  be  a  regular  member 
of  the  church  and  possess  the  testimony  of  a  Christian  con- 
versation. At  the  request  of  the  church-council  he  is  to  be 
examined  at  the  synod  as  to  his  qualifications.  If  he  is  found 
able,  he  is  dedicated  [gewidmet]  to  such  service  by  one  or  more 
pastors  by  prayer  and  laying  on  of  hands  either  at  the  con- 
ference or  in  one  of  the  congregations  which  he  serves.  And 
in  the  presence  of  the  whole  congregation  he  is,  at  the  same 
time,  to  make  the  solemn  promise  that  he  will  faithfully  dis- 
charge his  office  according  to  his  instructions.  If  such  a  deacon 
proves  to  be  diligent  in  his  office  and  acquires  the  knowledge 


232  THE   TENNESSEE    SYNOD. 

and  ability  needed  for  the  discharge  of  the  office  of  a  pastor, 
and  also  receives  a  regular  call  from  one  or  more  congrega- 
tions who  are  without  a  minister,  he  may  be  consecrated  and 
ordained  a  pastor  in  the  manner  indicated  before."  ( 1820,  6.)  — 
In  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the  Tennessee  Synod 
adhered  to  the  custom  of  breaking  the  bread,  instead  of  using 
wafers.  When  questioned  by  Missouri  concerning  this  practise, 
they  appealed  to  1  Cor.  10,  16  and  to  passages  of  the  Con- 
fessions which  speak  of  a  "breaking  of  the  bread."  In  1856 
Synod  declared:  "With  all  due  deference  to  the  learning  and 
high  character  of  the  Missouri  Synod  for  orthodoxy,  we  have 
been  unable  to  see  sufficient  reason  to  make  any  change  in  our 
manner  of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper.  We  are  influenced 
in  our  practise  in  this  respect  by  the  authority  of  both  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  .  .  .  For  the  present,  therefore,  we  feel  fully  justified 
in  our  present  practise."  (R.  1856,  23  f.)  Self-evidently,  Ten- 
nessee did  not  adhere  to  this  practise  in  the  interest  of  Re- 
formed or  unionistic  views. 

THE  HENKELS. 

123.  A  Most  Influential  Family.  —  The  Henkels  were  by 
far  the  most  prominent  and  influential  of  the  men  composing 
the  Tennessee  Synod.  Because  of  their  bold  and  uncompro- 
mising attitude  toward  the  sects  as  well  as  all  others  deviating 
from  the  Christian  doctrine,  as  taught  by  the  Lutheran  Con- 
fessions, they,  together  with  their  adherents,  were  universally, 
by  false  Lutherans  as  well  as  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presby- 
terians, and  other  sects,  hated  and  ostracized,  and  stigmatized 
as  "the  Henkelites,"  Paul  Henkel  being  designated  as  their 
"head."  (B.  1824,  10.)  The  sire  of  the  American  branch  of 
the  Henkel  family  was  Gerhard  Henkel.  For  a  time  he  was 
court  chaplain  to  the  Duke  Moritz  of  Saxony.  But  when  the 
duke  turned  Roman  Catholic,  Henkel  was  banished.  He  left 
for  America  and  served  the  first  Lutherans  in  Virginia  and 
later  on  Lutheran  congregations  in  Pennsylvania,  notably  in 
New  Hanover  and  Germantown.  James  Henkel,  the  grandson 
of  G.  Henkel,  was  the  father  of  Moses,  Paul,  Isaac,  and  John 
Henkel.    Thus  Paul  Henkel,  born  1754,  was  the  great-grandson 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  233 

of  Gerhard  Henkel.  He  was  educated  by  J.  A.  Krug  and  or- 
dained by  the  Pennsylvania  Ministerium  in  1792.  For  many 
years  he  served  as  missionary,  laboring  especially  in  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  and  Ohio.  He  was  pastor  at  New  Market,  Va., 
at  Salisbury,  Va.,  and  again  at  New  Market,  where  he  died, 
November  17,  1825.  He  participated  in  the  organization  of  the 
North  Carolina  Synod,  in  1803,  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  in  1818,  of 
the  Tennessee  Synod,  in  1820.  In  New  Market,  Paul  Henkel, 
together  with  his  sons,  established  a  printery  for  the  purpose 
of  supplying  the  Lutheran  Church  with  the  books,  German  and 
English,  which  they  were  in  need  of  so  sorely:  Luther's  Cate- 
chism, the  Augsburg  Confession,  a  Liturgy,  hymn-books,  etc. 
Paul  Henkel  was  the  father  of  six  sons:  Solomon,  Philip, 
Ambrose,  Andrew,  David,  and  Carl.  Solomon  was  a  physician, 
and  manager  of  the  printing-establishment.  Philip  was  pastor 
in  Green  County,  Tenn.,  and  a  member  of  the  North  Carolina 
Synod.  Together  with  Bell,  who  was  later  ordained  a  minister, 
he  opened  a  Union  Seminary  which,  however,  soon  passed  out 
of  existence.  He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod.  Two  of  his  sons,  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius,  were  Lutheran 
ministers.  Ambrose  was  minister  at  New  Market,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  New  Market  publishing  firm.  Under  him  the  Book 
of  Concord  and  other  important  works  were  issued.  He  was 
joint  translator  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the 
Smalcald  Articles,  the  Appendix,  and  the  Articles  of  Visitation. 
Andrew,  the  fourth  son,  was  pastor  in  Ohio.  David,  the  fifth 
son,  was  the  most  gifted  of  the  Henkel  family.  A  clear,  able, 
and  undaunted  theologian,  he  was  preeminent  in  zealously  de- 
fending the  Lutheran  truth.  He  died  1831,  at  the  early  age 
of  thirty-six  years.  His  two  sons,  Polycarp  and  Socrates, 
entered  the  ministry.  The  latter  was  pastor  in  New  Market 
for  more  than  forty  years;  he  also  assisted  in  the  publication 
of  the  Book  of  Concord.  Charles,  the  youngest  son,  was  pastor 
in  Ohio  and  published  a  translation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  1834.  Dr.  Graebner  remarks  with  respect  to  the  publishing 
house  established  by  the  Henkels  at  New  Market:  "From  this 
printery,  which  is  in  existence  to-day  as  the  oldest  Lutheran 
publishing  house  in  America,  were  issued  numerous  large  and 
small  publications  in  both  the  English  and  German  languages, 


234  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

abc-books,  catechisms,  hymnals,  theological  dissertations  and 
polemical  writings,  books  for  pastime  and  for  instruction  for 
young  and  old,  Christmas  booklets,  such  as  Das  Virginische 
Einderbuch  of  1809,  a  paper  entitled,  Der  Virginische  Volks- 
berichter  und  Neu-Marketer  Wochenschrift  bearing  the  motto: 
'Ich  bring'  das  Neu's,  80  gut  ich's  weiss!'  The  Henkels  were 
a  busy  and  skilful  people.  When  in  need  of  manuscript  for 
their  press,  they  wrote  it;  when  in  need  of  verses,  they  com- 
posed them;  when  in  need  of  wood-cuts,  they  cut  in  wood; 
after  the  books  were  printed,  they  bound  them;  and  when  the 
bindings  had  dried,  they,  in  part  themselves,  canvassed  the 
finished  product  throughout  the  country."   (611.) 

124.  Paul  Henkel.  —  "My  father,"  says  Andrew  Henkel, 
"was  a  large  man,  within  half  an  inch  of  six  feet  in  height, 
well  developed,  with  a  keen  black  eye,  as  erect  as  an  Indian; 
somewhat  inclined  to  corpulency,  and  yet  athletic  and  rapid 
in  his  movements.  Though  his  health  was  not  always  good, 
yet  he  was  almost  constantly  employed  either  in  reading, 
writing,  preaching,  or  traveling;  and  when  necessary  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  labor  with  his  hands.  He  had  no  desire  for 
this  world's  goods  beyond  what  was  wanting  for  daily  use; 
whatever  savored  of  ostentation  was  foreign  to  his  nature. 
His  manner  of  living  was  frugal,  and  his  dress  plain,  and  yet 
in  performing  the  services  of  the  sanctuary,  he  uniformly  wore 
a  gown  of  rich  black  silk.  He  had  great  equanimity  and 
serenity  of  temper,  and  his  friendships  were  sincere  and  con- 
stant, and  his  friends  numerous.  In  the  social  circle  he  always 
rendered  himself  agreeable,  and  often  communicated  important 
instruction  by  means  of  some  pertinent  and,  sometimes,  humor- 
ous anecdote.  As  a  preacher  he  possessed  much  more  than 
ordinary  power.  In  the  commencement  of  his  discourse  he  was 
slow  and  somewhat  blundering,  but,  as  his  subject  opened  be- 
fore him,  he  would  become  animated  and  eloquent,  with  a  full 
flow  of  appropriate  thought  and  glowing  language.  His  illus- 
trations were  lucid  and  forceful,  simple  and  natural.  He 
assisted  in  training  a  goodly  number  of  young  men  for  the 
ministry,  some  of  whom  have  occupied  responsible  stations 
with  great  fidelity  and  usefulness."  (Sheatsley,  History,  40; 
L.  u.  W.  43,  106  ff.)      The   obituary    notice    of   "Father    Paul 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  235 

Henkel  of  blessed  memory,"  appended  to  the  Tennessee  Re- 
port of  1826,  says,  in  part:  "During  his  illness  his  greatest 
concern  was  that  we  might  all  remain  faithful  to  the  pure 
Evangelical  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  with  meekness  and  patience, 
yet  manfully  contend  for  the  truth  for  which  he  had  contended 
so  earnestly."  (B.  1825,  16.)  He  expressed  the  same  senti- 
ments in  a  message  to  Pastor  Riemensehneider,  by  whom  he 
also  desired  to  be  buried.  Ambrose  Henkel,  in  a  letter,  dated 
November  30,  1825,  reports  concerning  the  death  of  his  father: 
"I  then  asked  him  whether  I  should  inform  also  all  my  brothers 
to  this  effect  concerning  him.  He  said:  '0  yes;  write  to  all 
of  them,  that  by  all  means  they  should  remain  steadfast.' 
I  furthermore  asked  him  whether  he  still  stood  on  the  faith 
which  he  had  hitherto  defended.  He  said:  'Yes,  indeed;  on 
this  faith  I  have  lived,  and  on  it  I  will  now  die.'  I  was  also 
careful  to  call  in  several  neighbors  to  listen  to  his  words, 
fearing  that  enemies  might  contradict  my  report  of  his  state- 
ments." In  his  last  letter,  written  to  his  son  David,  and  dated 
August  20,  1825,  Paul  Henkel  wrote:  "If  the  doctrine  is  right 
and  it  is  the  will  of  the  Lord  that  it  should  be  taught  publicly, 
He  will  also  find  and  show  ways  and  means  to  do  it.  ...  .  How 
our  mendax-priests  would  rejoice  if  they  could  accuse  some  of 
us  that  we  deviated  in  a  single  article  from  the  teaching  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith."    (L.  u.  W.  60,  62.) 

125.  David  and  Philip  Henkel.  —  As  for  David  Henkel, 
the  Report  of  1831  enumerates  his  publications  and  speaks  of 
him  as  "this  much-esteemed  and  venerable  fellow-laborer." 
"His  last  illness,"  says  the  notice  of  his  death,  "was  dyspepsia, 
which  disabled  him  from  officiating  in  a  public  capacity  for 
the  term  of  nine  months.  He  bore  his  afflictions  with  a  perfect 
resignation  to  the  will  of  his  divine  Redeemer.  He  embarked 
in  the  cause  of  his  blessed  Savior  when  a  youth  (1812).  And 
we  are  happy  to  say,  to  the  praise  of  this  worthy  servant  of 
Christ,  that  his  assiduity  and  vigilance  to  study  and  deep  re- 
searches into  the  truth  of  divine  revelation  have  seldom  been 
equaled  by  any.  He  remained  immovable  in  the  doctrines  he 
promulgated  to  the  end  of  his  life.  This  venerable  servant  of 
the  Lord  had  to  endure  many  trials,  crosses,  and  temptations, 
but  he  maintained  his  integrity  through  them  all,  trusting  to 


236  THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD. 

the  promises  of  his  Redeemer;  and  notwithstanding  the  diffi- 
culties he  had  to  encounter,  he  left  a  bright  example  to  suc- 
ceeding pilgrims.  His  ardent  desire  for  the  promotion  of  his 
Redeemer's  kingdom  and  his  love  of  truth  caused  him  to  sub- 
mit cheerfully  to  the  difficulties  connected  with  his  official 
labors.  When  on  his  death-bed,  being  interrogated  by  his 
friends  whether  he  still  remained  steadfast  in  the  doctrines 
which  he  had  taught,  he  confidently  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
Being  again  asked  whether  he  feared  death,  he  replied  in  the 
negative.  The  last  words  which  he  was  heard  to  utter,  were, 
'O  Lord  Jesus,  Thou  Son  of  God,  receive  my  spirit!'  and  in  a 
few  moments  expired."  "The  perishable  remains  of  this  worthy 
brother  were  followed  to  the  grave  by  his  loving  companion 
and  seven  children,  together  with  a  numerous  train  of  mourners, 
who  were  left  to  lament  the  loss  of  a  kind  father,  an  affectionate 
husband,  a  friend  and  benefactor.  The  body  is  deposited  at 
St.  John's  Church,  Lincoln  County,  N.  C.  The  funeral  sermon 
was  delivered  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Moser,  from  Phil.  1,  21:  'For 
to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.'  "  From  1812  to 
1830  David  Henkel  preached  3,200  sermons,  baptized  2,997 
infants  and  243  adults,  and  confirmed  1,105  persons.  The 
whole  course  of  his  ministry  was  distinguished  for  industry 
and  perseverance.  He  traveled  in  all  seasons,  even  the  most 
inclement,  and  frequently  preached  two  and  three  times  in 
a  day,  in  the  German  and  English  languages.  Besides,  he 
maintained  an  extensive  correspondence  and  was  quite  active 
also  in  a  literary  way.  (1831,  15.)  — Concerning  Philip  Henkel 
we  read  in  the  obituary  notice,  appended  to  the  Tennessee 
Report  of  1833:  "Already  in  his  youth  he  was  a  confessor 
and  defender  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  began  in  1800 
to  consecrate  his  services  to  the  Lord,  in  whose  vineyard  he 
labored  incessantly  for  33  years  and  3  months.  During  this 
time  he  preached  4,350  sermons,  of  which  125  were  funeral 
sermons.  He  baptized  4,115  children  and  325  adults,  and  con- 
firmed 1,650  persons  into  the  Christian  Church.  .  .  .  Shortly 
before  his  end  he  declared,  if  it  were  the  will  of  God  to  take 
him  home,  he  was  willing,  and  prayed  the  verse,  which  were 
also  the  last  words  he  was  heard  to  utter:    'For  me  to  live  is 


THE   TENNESSEE   SYNOD.  237 

Jesus,  To  die  is  gain  for  me,  To  Him  I  gladly  yield  me,  And 
die  right  cheerfully.'"  (B.  1833,  24.)  Philip  Henkel  was  first 
to  conceive  the  plan  of  organizing  the  Tennessee  Synod.  In 
a  letter  to  his  brother  David,  dated  December  9,  1819,  he  wrote 
that  he  would  do  his  utmost  to  induce  Pastors  Zink  and  Miller 
to  join  them.  "But,"  he  added,  "do  not  say  a  word  of  it  to 
anybody,  not  even  to  your  best  friend,  lest  they  get  wind  of  it." 
In  a  second  letter,  dated  March  14,  1820,  Philip  declared:  "If 
the  old  ministers  will  not  act  agreeably  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, we  will  erect  a  synod  in  Tennessee."    (L.  u.  W.  59,  481.) 

THE  END  OF  VOLUME  I. 


-*+-- 


